Reconstruction of regulation for corruption eradication commission officers involved in corruption cases base on justice values

Abstract

This article analyzes the systemic weaknesses within current regulatory frameworks governing officers of anti-corruption commissions and demonstrates how these deficiencies undermine core justice values and institutional credibility. Ambiguities in jurisdiction, weak conflict-of-interest controls, inconsistent disciplinary practices, and the absence of independent oversight create conditions that erode public trust, enable internal misconduct, and expose commissions to political interference. Using a justice-value framework—procedural, retributive, corrective, distributive, and restorative justice—the study reveals how fragmented regulations produce operational failures and institutional risks, including moral hazard, cultural deterioration, and loss of cross-agency cooperation. To address these challenges, the paper proposes a comprehensive justice-oriented regulatory model featuring clear investigative mandates, conflict-free procedures, transparent reporting systems, standardized sanctions, and an independent oversight body. The proposed reconstruction aligns with international standards such as the Jakarta Principles and UNCAC, ensuring that anti-corruption commissions strengthen their integrity, independence, and accountability. By embedding justice values into daily operations and legal structures, the framework equips commissions to regain public trust and fulfill their mandate as credible guardians of national integrity.