Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

When anti-corruption norms lead to undesirable results: learning from the Indonesian experience

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes how and why adverse side-effects have occurred in the implementation of two articles of Indonesia’s anti-corruption law. These articles prohibit unlawful acts which may be detrimental to the finances of the state. Indeed, the lawmakers had good intentions when they drafted the two articles. They wanted to make it easier to convict corrupt individuals by lowering the standard of evidence required to prove criminal liability. The implementation of these articles has raised legal uncertainty. The loose definition of the elements of the crime enables negligence and imperfection of (public) contracts to be considered as corruption. The Constitutional Court has issued two rulings to restrict and guide the interpretation of these articles. However, law enforcement agencies (Supreme Court and public prosecutors) have been unwilling to adhere to the rulings. There are two possible reasons for this. First, as has been argued by several commentators, the law enforcement agencies have misinterpreted the concept of “unlawfulness”. Besides, the law enforcement agencies wish to be seen to be committed to prosecuting and delivering convictions in corruption cases. To do so, they need to maintain looser definitions of the elements of the offence. This paper endorses the Constitutional Court rulings and provides additional reasons in support of their stance. The paper can be considered as a case study for other countries that may be contemplating similar legislation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The context of her illustration was that after Soeharto fell in 1998, the Indonesian government tried to change from a highly centralized style of government to what is called extensive decentralization. This strengthened the power of regional parliaments to, among other things, prioritize the allocation of local government budgets. Nonetheless, local representatives in some regions cut subsidies for education and healthcare in favor of higher salaries for themselves. The central government has issued Government Regulation No 21/2007 to minimize such abuses of power.

  2. The court decision regarding Agus Kuncoro is detailed in No. 99/Pid.Sus/TPK/2014/PN.SBY. The official record of this ruling is incomplete. However, the summary information can be found in the court decision database system: https://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/putusan/1be160621c51addce14deb3ae902a879, accessed May 19, 2017. The elaboration in this paper is based on the judicial decision of the Director CV Bintang Timur [18], Court Decision No 100/Pid.Sus/TPK/2014/PN.SBY.

References

  1. Transparency International (1995). Press release: New Zaeland best, Indonesia worst in world poll of international corruption. https://www.transparency.org/files/content/tool/1995_CPI_EN.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  2. Bunte, M., & Ufen, A. (2009). The new order and its legacy: Reflections on democratization in Indonesia. In M. Bunte & A. Ufen (Eds.), Democratization in post-Soeharto Indonesia (pp. 5–25). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Robertson-Snape, F. (1999). Corruption, collusion and nepotism in Indonesia. Third World Quarterly, 20(3), 589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Transparency International (2017). Corruption Perception Index 2016. https://www.transparency.org. Accessed 14 May 2017.

  5. Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (2006). Memahami untuk membasmi: buku saku untuk memahami tindak pidana korupsi. https://www.kpk.go.id/gratifikasi/BP/buku_saku_korupsi.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2017.

  6. Kompas (2015). Presiden minta pejabat tak mudah dipidana karena ambil keputusan. http://nasional.kompas.com. Accessed 13 May 2017.

  7. Okezone (2014). SBY: banyak pejabat takut menandatangani proyek negara. http://news.okezone.com. Accessed 13 May 2017.

  8. Detik (2015a). Banyak proyek mandek karena pejabat takut mengambil keputusan. http://finance.detik.com. Accessed 13 May 2017.

  9. Detik (2015b). Takut masuk menjara, pejabat lambat urus proyek. http://finance.detik.com. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  10. Jawa Pos (2017) Gak kuat, pejabat pemkab mundur bareng-bareng. http://www.jpnn.com. Accessed 13 July 2017.

  11. Suara Merdeka (2014). Pejabat pengadaan tak perlu takut. http://www.suaramerdeka.com. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  12. Wibowo, R. (2017). Preventing maladministration in Indonesian public procurement. Utrecht: Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yuntho, E., Sari, I. D., Limbong, J., & Bakar, R. (2014). Penerapan unsur merugikan keuangan negara dalam tindak pidana korupsi. http://www.antikorupsi.org/id/doc/penerapan-unsur-merugikan-keuangan-negara-dalam-delik-tindak-pidana-korupsi. Accessed 12 May 2017.

  14. Djatmiko case (2006). Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006 (Constitutional Court 25 July 2006).

  15. Ali, M. M., Hilipito, M. R., & Asy'ari, S. (2015). Tindak lanjut putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang bersifat konstitutional bersyarat serta memuat norma baru. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(3), 631–662.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kantaprawira case (2006) Decision Number 1974K/PID/2006 (Supreme Court 13 October 2006).

  17. Butt, S. (2009). Unlawfulness’ and corruption under Indonesian law. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 45(2), 179–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bintang Timur case (2014). Decision Number 100/Pid.Sus/TPK/2014/PN.SBY (Surabaya District Court 28 October 2014).

  19. Bank Jatim (2017). Bank garansi. http://www.bankjatim.co.id. Accessed 21 June 2017.

  20. Metrotv (2016). Deretan mobil listrik karya anak bangsa yang dicuekin. http://otomotif.metrotvnews.com. Accessed 07 Aug 2017.

  21. Tjandra, R. (2009). Hukum keuangan negara. Jakarta: Grassindo.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wiyono, R. (2012). Pembahasan undang-undang tindak pidana korupsi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Khairandy, R. (2009). Korupsi di badan usaha milik negara khususnya perusahaan perseroan: suatu kajian atas makna kekayaan negara yang dipisahkan dan keuangan negara. Ius Quia Iustum Law Journal, 6(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rajagukguk, E. (2006). Pengertian keuangan negara dan kerugian negara. http://www.perpustakaan.depkeu.go.id/FOLDERDOKUMEN/PENGERTIAN%20KEUANGAN%20NEGARA.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  25. Ahmadi case (2016a). Decision Number 140/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.Jkt.Pst (Central Jakarta District Court 14 March 2016).

  26. Ahmadi case (2016b). Decision Number 39/PID/TPK/2016/PT.DKI (Jakarta High (Appeal) Court 27 May 2016).

  27. Ahmadi case (2016c). Decision Number 1628 K/PID.SUS/2016 (Supreme Court 7 November 2016).

  28. Firdaus et al. case (2017). Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 (Constitutional Court 25 January 2017).

  29. LeIP (2016). Penjelasan hukum: unsur melawan hukum – hukum pidana. http://leip.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Penjelasan-Hukum-tentang-Unsur-Melawan-Hukum-Hukum-Pidana.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2017.

  30. Pompe, S. (2005). The Indonesian supreme court: A study of institutional collapse. Itacha: Cornell Southeast Asia Program.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Supardjaja, K. (2002). Ajaran sifat melawan hukum materiel dalam hukum pidana Indonesia. Bandung: Alumni.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hieriej, E. (2016). Prinsip-prinsip hukum pidana. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kejaksaan Agung (2014). Laporan tahunan 2013. https://kejaksaan.go.id/upldoc/laptah/l2013f.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2017.

  34. Kejaksaan Agung (2016). Laporan tahunan 2015. https://kejaksaan.go.id/upldoc/laptah/2015-Laporan%20Tahunan%202015%20Kejaksan%20Republik%20Indonesia-id.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2017.

  35. Syamsudin, A. (2006). Koruptor “Versus” Penegak Hukum. http://www.unisosdem.org. Accessed 25 July 2017.

  36. Indonesia Corruption Watch (2014). Vonis ringan, koruptor senang. http://www.antikorupsi.org/sites/antikorupsi.org/files/files/Bulletin/Tren%20Vonis%20korupsi%20semester%20I%202014,%203%20Agustus_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2017.

  37. Kompas (2017). ICW sebut vonis ringan koruptor bikin hukuman tak berefek jera. http://nasional.kompas.com. Accessed 10 July 2017.

  38. KPK (2017). Jejak kasus. https://acch.kpk.go.id. Accessed 08 Aug 2017.

  39. Butt, S., & Schuette, S. A. (2014). Assessing judicial performance in Indonesia: the court for corruption crimes. Crime, Law and Social Change, 62, 603–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dennis, I. (2013). The law of evidence. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schweizer, S. (2012). The civil standard of proof – what is it, actually? https://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2013_12online.pdf. Accessed 09 Jan 2017.

  42. Boiten, D. J. (2003). The Netherlands principles of criminal procedure and their applications in disciplinary proceedings. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 74(3), 1077–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. US Court (2000). Jury instructions. http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/pdfforms/swsinstruct-civ.docx. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  44. Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of evidence law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Dicey, A. (1915). Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sofyan, A. (2013). Hukum acara pidana, suatu pengantar. Yogyakarta: Rangkang Education.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pitlo, A. (1986). Pembuktian dan daluwarsa. Jakarta: Intermasa.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Subekti, R. (2003). Hukum pembuktian. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Harahap, Y. (2010). Pembahasan permasalahan dan penerapan KUHAP. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hamzah, A., & Dahlan, I. (1984). Perbandingan KUHAP HIR dan komentar. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Harahap, Y. (2015). Hukum acara perdata. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

    Google Scholar 

  52. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2006). Legislative guide for the implementation of the United Nations Convention against corruption. https://www.unodc.org/pdf/corruption/CoC_LegislativeGuide.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.

  53. Menpan (2014). RUU Adpem disahkan, tidak ada lagi kriminalisasi. http://www.menpan.go.id. Accessed 13 July 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedbacks on earlier drafts of the manuscript; Fachrizal Affandi for his suggestion on the aspect of criminal procedure law; and Sally Low for her support on proofreading the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sosio Justitia 1, Yogyakarta, 55231, Indonesia

    Richo Andi Wibowo

Authors
  1. Richo Andi Wibowo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richo Andi Wibowo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wibowo, R.A. When anti-corruption norms lead to undesirable results: learning from the Indonesian experience. Crime Law Soc Change 70, 383–396 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9737-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9737-8

Search

Navigation