Tackling pedophilia crimes often faces serious obstacles, especially when the perpetrator has a high social status or strong influence in society. This condition often hampers the law enforcement process, because it is difficult to hold the perpetrator criminally accountable fairly. This research is an empirical legal research by conducting interviews and observing examination files and related documents.The results of this study indicate that: (1) efforts to combat pedophilia crimes that occurred in Oesena Village have not been optimal due to weak coordination between parties. The police are overwhelmed in handling similar cases, while legal aid institutions can only provide assistance without full legal authority, even though they try through social media. As a result, the victims have not received legal justice. (2) the accountability of perpetrators of pedophilia crimes seen from the aspect of justice has not been fulfilled, both legally and socially. Legally, the perpetrators have not received appropriate punishment. This shows that the perpetrators have not been truly held accountable for their actions fairly.

Discipline in education is necessary for students to understand moral and social boundaries. The practice of disciplining (corporal punishment) against students is still debatable. Some people consider it a form of violence against children that contradicts the principles of child protection in Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection. A dilemma arises regarding the limits of the teacher's authority in disciplining students and whether these actions can be categorized as criminal acts or are still included in the realm of education. Article 14 of Law No. 14/2005 on Teachers and Lecturers states that teachers have the right to impose sanctions on students who violate norms, rules, and academic ethics. This research is normative research. The results of this research are: (1) The provision of corporal punishment by teachers against students who violate religious norms, norms of decency, norms of politeness, written and unwritten rules set by teachers in the learning process cannot be categorized as acts against criminal law if the corporal punishment carried out by the teacher does not exceed the limits of reasonableness or punishment that is educational in nature in accordance with the teacher's code of ethics. (2) The application of mediation as a form of protection for teachers regulated in Article 4 paragraph 2 of Permendikbud Number 10 of 2017, where mediation is a form of implementation of restorative justice values creating a space for peaceful problem solving that considers the interests of students, teachers and students. The application of mediation as a form of protection for teachers regulated in Article 4 paragraph 2 of Permendikbud Number 10 of 2017, where mediation is a form of implementation of restorative justice values creating a space for peaceful problem solving that considers the interests of students, teachers, and the school community.

The scope of pretrial authority is regulated under Article 77 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), with an extension of authority introduced through the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014. The evidentiary process in pretrial proceedings is governed by Article 2 paragraphs (2) and (4) of the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2016 concerning the Prohibition of Judicial Review of Pretrial Decisions. However, in practice, petitions for pretrial often address matters beyond this prescribed authority. Moreover, there remains a disparity in judicial reasoning across different judges, particularly with respect to the evaluation of evidence in the determination of a suspect.The legal issues examined in this study are: (1) whether the expansion of the pretrial authority’s scope has led to multiple interpretations among law enforcement officers, and (2) how the evidentiary process in pretrial proceedings aligns with the principle of legal certainty. This thesis employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The findings of this thesis reveal that the expansion of pretrial authority has indeed created multiple interpretations among law enforcement officials, owing to inconsistencies in pretrial decisions that result from judicial discretion. Furthermore, the evidentiary process in pretrial proceedings ought to be limited to the formal aspects of investigative or prosecutorial actions. Nevertheless, certain pretrial rulings have considered the substance and quality of evidence, and even assessed the conduct of the suspect. Such practices undermine legal certainty for justice seekers. Therefore, the Supreme Court should issue more concrete regulations concerning the scope of pretrial and the evidentiary standards applicable in pretrial proceedings.