ANALISIS YURIDIS KEGAGALAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM PELANGGARAN ETIKA: KRITIK TERHADAP HASIL SIDANG PELANGGARAN ETIKA ANGGOTA DPR RI

This study examines the failure of ethical enforcement in the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI), focusing on a juridical critique of the findings from the Ethics Committee (MKD) hearing in the Sahroni et al. case. The objective of this study is to analyze the forms of ethical violations committed by DPR RI members from a juridical perspective, examine internal factors causing lenient sanctions in MKD decisions, and analyze the overall impact of these decisions on the law enforcement system in Indonesia.

This research employs an empirical juridical approach using a case study method through data analysis gathered from credible online news outlets, legal documents, and academic literature. The findings reveal that the ethical violations in the Sahroni et al. case fall into three categories: personal, institutional, and public ethics. The sanction imposed by the MKD—a mere written reprimand—was disproportionate to the severity of the violation. Contributing factors include political conflicts of interest, weak regulatory frameworks, the dominance of political considerations, and a lack of transparency. Consequently, the impacts manifest as the erosion of credibility in law enforcement institutions, the fostering of a culture of impunity, and widespread socio-political apathy.

Theoretically, this condition violates the principle of the rule of law, Rawls' theory of justice, Kantian deontological ethics, and Aristotelian virtue ethics. The study recommends a comprehensive reform of the MKD to enhance independence, accountability, transparency, and the proportionality of sanctions in order to restore public trust and strengthen Indonesian democracy.