Abstract

The principle of freedom of contract is a fundamental tenet in Indonesian civil law, providing parties with the flexibility to regulate agreements. However, the dominance of public law over private law in corruption cases has led to the neglect of the freedom of contract principle. This study identifies a gap in the literature concerning how public law intervention impacts the freedom of contract in corruption court rulings. Utilizing a normative juridical research method, with an analysis of legal documents and court decisions, this study examines cases that initially were civil disputes but were shifted to the realm of criminal law through a public law approach. The findings indicate that in many cases, the courts tend to override the principle of freedom of contract in favor of public interest, resulting in legal uncertainty for the parties involved in contract disputes. Furthermore, public law intervention in corruption cases often transforms the nature of disputes from civil to criminal, thereby reducing contractual autonomy. This research highlights the need for a better balance between public and private law to safeguard the freedom of contract. These findings offer important contributions for policymakers in designing fair regulations in corruption cases involving contractual disputes.