Law often reveals its true character not in ordinary times, but in moments of crisis.
Few crimes challenge the conscience of a nation as profoundly as terrorism. It does not merely destroy buildings or claim innocent lives. It attempts to fracture something far more fundamental, namely the collective confidence that society can live together peacefully despite differences. Every terrorist attack leaves visible scars, yet the invisible wounds of fear, mistrust, and social polarization frequently endure much longer than the physical damage itself.
This reality presents judges with an extraordinary dilemma. Society understandably demands firmness. Victims seek justice. The State seeks security. Yet the judiciary must remain faithful to another principle that is equally indispensable. Justice cannot be driven by public emotion alone. Courts exist precisely because the rule of law must remain calm when society cannot.
It is within this delicate intersection between security and justice that the Supreme Court issued PERMA No. 2 of 2026 concerning Sentencing Guidelines for Terrorism Crimes. At first glance, the regulation appears technical, consisting of sentencing matrices, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and procedural stages that judges must follow. To some readers, it may look like another administrative instrument designed merely to improve consistency in criminal punishment.
But perhaps that is too narrow a way of seeing it.
Every legal instrument reflects a philosophy. Behind every procedural requirement lies an idea about what kind of justice a society wishes to build. PERMA No. 2/2026 is therefore more than a sentencing guideline. It represents Indonesia’s continuing search for a judicial system capable of balancing certainty with humanity, consistency with judicial independence, and national security with constitutional values.
The regulation acknowledges an uncomfortable truth that legal scholars have debated for decades. Inconsistency in sentencing can become a form of injustice in itself. When defendants who commit comparable acts receive dramatically different punishments without convincing legal justification, public confidence in the judiciary inevitably begins to erode. Citizens start asking a dangerous question. Is justice determined by law, or by luck?
Uniformity, however, should never be mistaken for mechanical justice.
Justice is not produced by calculators. It is produced by human judgment disciplined by legal reasoning. A judge is not expected to become a machine that simply inserts facts into a sentencing formula and waits for an answer to appear. On the contrary, judicial independence remains the cornerstone of constitutional democracy. What PERMA No. 2/2026 attempts to provide is not a substitute for judicial wisdom, but a compass that helps ensure such wisdom moves in a coherent direction.
This distinction deserves careful attention.
Legal certainty without humanity risks becoming bureaucratic rigidity. Humanity without consistency risks descending into arbitrariness. The real challenge is not choosing between the two, but learning how both can coexist within the same judicial decision.
In many ways, this is exactly what the new sentencing framework attempts to accomplish.
Rather than asking judges to begin with punishment, it asks them to begin with understanding. The regulation requires a sequential assessment of culpability, the seriousness of harm, the appropriate sentencing range, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and only then the determination of the final sentence. Such an approach reminds us that punishment is not the starting point of justice. It is its conclusion.
This seemingly procedural order carries profound philosophical significance.
A civilized legal system should never rush toward punishment before first understanding responsibility. Every sentence pronounced in court is ultimately a moral statement about the relationship between individual accountability, societal protection, and the constitutional values that bind the nation together.
Perhaps this is the most valuable lesson offered by PERMA No. 2/2026.
The regulation does not simply tell judges how to sentence terrorism cases. It quietly reminds all of us why sentencing matters in the first place.
In an era where public discourse often rewards outrage more than reflection, this may be one of the judiciary’s most important contributions. Justice should neither surrender to fear nor become detached from human suffering. Instead, it must stand where it has always belonged, between law and conscience, between certainty and compassion, and between the protection of society and the dignity of every person who enters a courtroom.
Ultimately, the success of this regulation will not be measured solely by whether sentencing disparities decrease. Its deeper legacy will depend on whether it strengthens public trust that Indonesian courts remain guided not merely by legal authority, but by moral responsibility.
For in the end, terrorism seeks to spread fear. The judiciary must answer with something far stronger, reasoned justice.
Untuk Mendapatkan Berita Terbaru Suara BSDK, Follow Channel WhatsApp: SUARABSDKMARI