ABSTRAKPenanganan perkara tindak pidana korupsi menganut sistem pemidanaan minimum bagi pelaku yang diputus bersalah oleh pengadilan. Istilah ketentuan pidana minimum khusus secara normatif diatur dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999, sebagaimana telah diubah menjadi Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada tataran praktiknya terdapat fenomena adanya putusan pengadilan yang menerobos sistem pemidanaan minimum yang dianut tersebut. Salah satu contoh putusan pengadilan yang ditelaah dalam tulisan ini adalah Putusan Nomor 2399 K/PID.SUS/2010. Permasalahan yang timbul adalah apa saja yang menjadi landasan infra petita hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan yang menerobos ketentuan pemidanaan minimum dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi tersebut. Metode dalam penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang. Penulis berkesimpulan bahwa putusan pengadilan tindak pidana korupsi yang menerobos ketentuan pemidanaan minimum dalam Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi pada dasarnya diperbolehkan. Sepanjang putusan hakim yang infra petita tersebut memiliki esensi ratio legis yang kuat dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan, atas dasar alasan pertimbangan nilai keadilan dan pertimbangan judex factie sebagaimana pada perkara a quo.Kata kunci: putusan, korupsi, pemidanaan minimum. ABSTRACT In the handling of a corruption case, mandatory minimum penalty is adopted in the criminal justice system for the offender who was found guilty by the court. The term ‘mandatory minimum penalty’ is normatively regulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law Number 31 of 1999, as amended to Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Corruption Eradication. In practice there is a phenomenon of a court decision breaching the adopted mandatory minimum penalty. One example of a court decision analyzed hereon is the Decision Number 2399 K/PID.SUS/2010. The arising problem is what the consideration of the judge is for infra petita in imposing decision which breached the mandatory minimum penalty provision in that corruption case. This research uses normative legal research method with legislation approach. It can be concluded that it is basically permissible in the corruption court’s decision to breach the minimum penalty provisions as stipulated in the Corruption Eradication Law. Provided that the judge’s decision of infra petita, is based on strong legislation ratio and can be accounted for, on the basis of justice value and judex factie considerations as in the a quo case. Keywords: court decision, corruption, minimum penalty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.