KESENJANGAN ANTARA LAW IN BOOKS DAN LAW IN ACTION: ANALISIS IMPLEMENTASI PUTUSAN MK NO. 99/PUU-XVII/2019 TERHADAP PRIORITAS REHABILITASI PENGGUNA NARKOTIKA

Abstract

Narcotics law enforcement in Indonesia faces a paradox: users, who normatively should be prioritized for rehabilitation , instead dominate prison sentences. Constitutional Court (MK) Decision No. 99/PUU-XVII/2019 was issued to affirm the obligation of rehabilitation for users. However, a significant gap exists between the legal ideal of the decision (law in books) and the reality of law enforcement (law in action). This research aims to analyze the implementation of the MK Decision in practice (investigation, prosecution, sentencing) and identify the factors causing this gap. This study employs empirical legal research with a socio-legal approach. Data was collected through doctrinal studies (analysis of regulations and decisions) and empirical data (in-depth interviews with law enforcement officials and practitioners). The findings indicate that the implementation of the MK Decision remains partial. At the investigation stage, the Integrated Assessment (AT) is often a mere formality ; prosecutors remain conservative in prosecution ; and judges still predominantly issue prison sentences. This gap is caused by dominant factors: (1) Philosophical Factors, namely the conflict between the public health paradigm (MK Decision) and the security approach ("War on Drugs"); (2) Institutional Factors, including sectoral egos and weak coordination ; and (3) Infrastructural Factors, specifically the limited availability of quality rehabilitation facilities. It is concluded that MK Decision No. 99/PUU-XVII/2019, while normatively ideal , has failed to be implemented due to deep-rooted philosophical and structural obstacles.