This article applies the theory of restorative justice to the analysis of state losses resulting from corrupt activities. This study employs socio-legal research, which is a type of normative legal research that is dependent on values and facts. The study's findings revealed that two (2) points of view are based on the fundamental notion that restorative justice can compensate the state for damages incurred through acts of corruption. First, in order to make up for the losses sustained by the state as a result of corrupt criminal acts, law enforcement must be centered around the idea of restorative justice. Secondly, the fact that the Constitutional Court's ruling Number 25-PUU-XIV-2016 eliminated the word "may" from Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law Number 20 Year 2001 in combination with Law Number 31 Year 1999 for the Eradication of Corruption remains a reality. In order to ensure that substantive justice in the application of restorative justice does not clash with current laws and regulations and is administered with chosen criteria, the A quo ruling nullifies Article 4 of the Corruption Crime Eradication Law.

Implementation of article 31 paragraph 2 letter C of National Police Chief Regulation no. 12 of 2009 regarding the investigation of abuse due to alcohol at the Gorontalo Resort Police. The research used is Empirical Research, which is legal research that uses empirical facts taken from human behavior, both verbal behavior obtained from interviews and real behavior carried out through direct observation. The research results obtained by the author in conducting this research include the application of Article 31 paragraph 2 letter C of the National Police Chief Regulation no. 12 of 2009 at the Gorontalo Resort Police, it has been implemented but is still not able to be implemented optimally because it is seen from the immediate situation and conditions in the field which are not expected. This article has also been effectively implemented in investigations but will be implemented within existing provisions. In investigations, the process is not always handled based on the provisions in these regulations, because investigators carry out the investigation process based on the level of vulnerability and the potential to threaten public safety.