The phenomenon of narcotics abuse in Indonesia continues to escalate, including the involvement of foreign

nationals (FNs) in international trafficking networks. The Indonesian government has responded to this threat

through Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, which explicitly provides for the possibility of imposing the death

penalty. This article examines the judicial considerations underlying the imposition of capital punishment on

foreign nationals convicted of narcotics offenses, as well as its implications for the principles of justice and

human rights. Employing a normative juridical approach and case analysis, this study finds that the death

penalty is regarded as an ultimum remedium instrument applied to extraordinary crimes. However, disparities

younger generations, increases the burden on the healthcare system, and exacerbates crime rates. Research

indicates that countries with a high prevalence of narcotics abuse tend to suffer significant economic losses due

to declining productivity and rising healthcare costs (UNODC, 2020).

As both a transit point and a primary destination for international narcotics trafficking, Indonesia faces serious

challenges in law enforcement. Its strategic geographic position, coupled with weak maritime surveillance, has

facilitated the entry of narcotics from international networks into the country. Transnational legal studies

underscore that Indonesia has become one of the largest markets in Southeast Asia, with repressive measures

often justified as essential to safeguarding state sovereignty (Nasir & Rosadi, 2019).

The application of the death penalty for narcotics offenders is rooted in the doctrine that such crimes constitute

extraordinary crimes requiring extraordinary measures. The Constitutional Court, in Decision No. 2-3/PUU-

related to narcotics cases, drawing criticism from the international community regarding the proportionality of

such punishment. However, the Indonesian government argues that narcotics offenders themselves violate the

fundamental rights of others, namely the right of younger generations to live healthily and productively

(Amnesty International, 2021).

Disparities in sentencing within narcotics-related death penalty cases, particularly those involving foreign

nationals (FNs), reveal the complexity of Indonesia’s judicial practice. In some cases, defendants initially

received life imprisonment at the trial court level, only to have the sentence converted to death on appeal or

cassation. This inconsistency raises questions about judicial coherence and the application of legal certainty.

the social impact of narcotics and by both national and international political pressures (Arief, 2018).

This study employs a normative juridical approach, which examines legal norms contained in statutory

regulations as well as judicial decisions. The primary legal materials consist of the 1945 Constitution of the

Republic of Indonesia, the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code

(KUHAP), Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, and Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights. Secondary legal

materials are drawn from academic literature, jurisprudence, and legal doctrines. The analysis is conducted

through a case study of the South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 1372/Pid.B/2012/PN.Jkt.Sel and the

Jakarta High Court Decision No. 118/PID/2013/PT.DKI.

The South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 1372/Pid.B/2012/PN.Jkt.Sel affirmed that narcotics-related

crimes fall within the category of extraordinary crimes due to their detrimental impact on public health,

reasoning that the mitigating factors were disproportionate to the magnitude of harm caused by narcotics to

society. The judges underscored the principle of community protection as the primary consideration, a doctrine

commonly referred to as the social defence theory (Arief, 2018).

Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics authorizes the imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes, particularly

large-scale trafficking. Capital punishment is positioned as an ultimum remedium, a last resort when other

forms of punishment are deemed insufficient. This principle is reinforced by the Constitutional Court Decision

No. 2-3/PUU-V/2007, which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty under strict conditions: the

possibility of a probationary period, exclusion for juvenile offenders, and postponement for pregnant women

or individuals with mental disorders (Hood & Hoyle, 2017).

The controversy surrounding capital punishment is inseparable from debates over the right to life, as

sentence highlights the persistent inconsistency in the application of law. Judicial subjectivity in weighing

aggravating and mitigating circumstances often results in inconsistencies. Studies in Indonesian criminal law

suggest that such disparities undermine legal certainty and create perceptions of injustice, even though judges

are normatively granted discretion in interpreting substantive justice (Nasir & Rosadi, 2019)

The findings indicate that the imposition of the death penalty on foreign nationals convicted of narcotics

crimes in Indonesia is grounded in the paradigm that narcotics constitute an extraordinary crime. Judges

primarily adopt a community protection approach as the central consideration, although this has sparked

debates on human rights and sentencing disparities. These findings underscore the need for more consistent

sentencing guidelines to ensure a balanced application of justice and legal certainty.

University Press.

4. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2007). Putusan No. 2-3/PUU-V/2007 tentang Uji Materiil

Hukuman Mati dalam Undang-Undang Narkotika. Jakarta: Mahkamah Konstitusi.

5. Nasir, M., & Rosadi, A. (2019). Combating Drug Crime in Indonesia: Between Criminal Law and

Human Rights Approach. Journal of Law and Legal Studies, 6(2), 145–160.

6. Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan. (2012). Putusan No. 1372/Pid.B/2012/PN.Jkt.Sel tentang Tindak

Pidana Narkotika. Jakarta: PN Jakarta Selatan.

7. Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta. (2013). Putusan No. 118/PID/2013/PT.DKI tentang Tindak Pidana

Narkotika. Jakarta: PT DKI Jakarta.

8. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2020). World Drug Report 2020. Vienna: