Within a democratic state based on the rule of law, public ethics serves as an unwritten foundation that underpins the relationship between citizens, public officials, and state institutions. Public ethics not only regulates what is and is not legally permissible but also guides the behavior of officials and citizens to align with the nation's noble values. In this context, recipients of amnesty or abolition bear a moral responsibility to respect two essential pillars of the state: the executive, which grants pardons, and the judiciary, which decides cases.
Ethically, legal pardons are a form of state generosity. Recipients are expected not to use the gift as an instrument of confrontation against the institution that previously examined them. Using abolition or amnesty as a springboard to attack judges can be categorized as an abuse of rights , namely the misuse of rights that, in legal principle, contradicts the principle of nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet ---a person may not use their rights beyond the purpose for which they were granted (Friedmann, 1990).
This abuse of power undermines the harmony between the branches of state power. The president exercises his prerogative within the framework of legal politics, while judges exercise their duties based on evidence and legal procedures. When a pardon recipient attacks a judge, it not only undermines the judge's personal integrity but also undermines public trust in the judiciary as a whole. Consequently, the state's authority is eroded from two directions: the executive branch, whose policies are manipulated, and the judiciary, whose decisions are manipulated by public opinion.
This phenomenon demonstrates a characteristic that can be associated with Machiavellian politics. In The Prince, Niccol Machiavelli (1532/1998) describes a strategy of maintaining power by prioritizing extreme pragmatism, even at the expense of traditional morality. Machiavelli argued that a shrewd ruler will exploit every opportunity, even if it compromises ethical relationships with others. In contemporary practice, this attitude is reflected when a politician accepts a pardon for personal gain, then uses it as a political weapon to weaken opponents, including state institutions.
The Machiavellian type of politician is incompatible with Pancasila democracy. The democratic system designed by the nation's founders presupposes a mystical national consciousness, a profound understanding that power is a sacred trust that must be used to realize the ideals of independence, not merely an instrument for the accumulation of personal interests. Pancasila, particularly its fourth principle, places an obligation on leadership to prioritize deliberation and the common good, rather than justifying any means for individual victory.
Ignoring this dimension has the potential to give rise to individualistic and opportunistic politicians. In political philosophy, this is called instrumental rationality ---reason used solely to achieve goals without considering the moral dimension ( ends justify the means ). However, in the Pancasila political ethics paradigm, means and ends must both reflect the values of justice, honesty, and respect for human dignity (Kaelan, 2010).
Furthermore, the abuse of prerogatives through the behavior of pardon recipients can set a bad precedent. In the future, other amnesty or abolition recipients may feel justified in using this policy as a political bargaining chip or moral justification for their actions. This erodes the philosophical meaning of state pardons, which should serve as a bridge to reconciliation, not a weapon of revenge.
From the perspective of John Rawls's (1971) theory of justice, the actions of Machiavellian politicians who exploit state pardons constitute a form of procedural injustice. This is because they gain special advantages from a supposedly neutral system and then use them to discredit other parts of the system. This creates an unfair advantage that contradicts the principle of justice as fairness.
A normative solution to this problem requires two steps. First , establishing a code of ethics for state pardon recipients that prohibits using pardons as grounds for suing judges unless there is clear evidence of legal violations during the judicial process. Second , fostering political education based on a mystical national consciousness , so that politicians understand that power, including the president's prerogative, is part of a moral contract between the state and the people.
From a public ethics perspective, a state pardon is a second chance that carries a moral obligation: the obligation not to harm the party granting it and not to disrupt constitutional harmony. Violating this principle constitutes a form of political moral hazard that threatens the sustainability of Pancasila democracy.
Therefore, recipients of amnesty or abolition should adopt a stance consistent with national values: respecting the President's decision, respecting the judge's ruling, and refraining from maneuvers that pit these two institutions against each other. This awareness, if firmly established, will distinguish between politicians who are merely tactically astute and strategically wise leaders---leaders who understand that political dignity lies in their ability to uphold the nation's honor, not merely in winning battles.
Legal Consequences
