This study aims to clarify the rationale for granting judges the authority to evaluate suspects based on trial evidence in corruption cases and to outline the potential consequences of granting such power in future revisions to the corruption justice system. This research employs a normative legal framework, utilising both legislative and conceptual techniques. The findings of this study indicate that the justification for granting judges the authority to identify suspects based on trial evidence in corruption cases includes the following: Corruption is an extraordinary crime; also, judges' identification of corruption suspects, based on trial evidence, corresponds with the principles of legal realism in the American legal system. The justification and capacity of judicial authorities to identify suspects in corruption charges can be validated, as corruption, as an exceptional crime, markedly diverges from conventional procedural law norms. This encompasses, firstly, the reversal of the burden of proof in corruption cases, a notion lacking in traditional criminal procedure; and secondly, the disregard for the principle of non-retroactivity in counter-terrorism efforts, which is not recognised in ordinary criminal procedural legislation. Thirdly, there is a precedent for courts identifying suspects in unlawful logging cases under Law No. 18 of 2013 for the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction.
Saputra et al. (2025) studied this question.