Infra Petita Putusan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Yang Menerobos Ketentuan Pemidanaan Minimum

Abstract

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.

Return of State Losses in Corruption through Confiscation of Assets Based on Justice (Indonesian Perspective)

“…[19] Every formal juridical decision of a judge cannot ignore the procedural aspects, but the most important of all is the birth of a decision that can lead the judges to the real legal objectives, namely justice, usefulness, and legal certainty. [20] The problem that arises in the effort to recover assets (asset recovery) in cases of corruption is the decision of a judge who attempts to impose an additional penalty in the form of payment of replacement money but always collides with the economic situation of the convict who is unable to pay the replacement money in full. As a result, the substitute money punishment as an effort to recover assets is substituted for imprisonment, so that the judge's decision cannot realize the hope of achieving economic justice.…”

Efforts to Eradicate Corruption in Indonesia's Local Government Environment

“…31 of 1999 as amended to Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes which regulates all formulations of corruption crimes that are material and the pattern of settlement of cases is formal [8]Implementatively there are various rulings that by the judge sentencing criminals against the head of the region who commit corruption is carried out under the threat of funding that has been regulated in the specific criminal law of corruption crimes. This ruling will be a question for the public in general even if the decision the judge has made is inkracht.…”

“…In the order of the system in the judicial world the existence of judges is considered very important, judges are officials who exercise judicial power, so the freedom of judges must always be in the corridors of independence of the institution of judicial power as specified in Article 3 of Law No. 48 of 2009 on the Judicial Commission which states that in carrying out its duties and functions, judges are obliged to maintain judicial independence [8]As an example of concrete efforts to eradicate corruption that is the verdict of the panel of judges against mustafa former regent lampung central which is in the sentence of 3 years less prison and required to pay a fine of Rp. 100 million subsider 3 months imprisonment.…”

Tanggapan Alkitab Terhadap Wacana Hukuman Mati bagi Pelaku Korupsi

“…Korupsi ditengarai sebagai penyebab kehancuran ekonomi yang memiliki dampak negatif pada terjadinya multi krisis pada hampir semua lini kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara. 16 Maka tidak mengherankan dampak dari korupsi dapat menimbulkan runtuhnya ekonomi sebuah bangsa.…”