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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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
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.
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.
Robertson-Snape, F. (1999). Corruption, collusion and nepotism in Indonesia. Third World Quarterly, 20(3), 589–602.
Transparency International (2017). Corruption Perception Index 2016. https://www.transparency.org. Accessed 14 May 2017.
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.
Kompas (2015). Presiden minta pejabat tak mudah dipidana karena ambil keputusan. http://nasional.kompas.com. Accessed 13 May 2017.
Okezone (2014). SBY: banyak pejabat takut menandatangani proyek negara. http://news.okezone.com. Accessed 13 May 2017.
Detik (2015a). Banyak proyek mandek karena pejabat takut mengambil keputusan. http://finance.detik.com. Accessed 13 May 2017.
Detik (2015b). Takut masuk menjara, pejabat lambat urus proyek. http://finance.detik.com. Accessed 17 May 2017.
Jawa Pos (2017) Gak kuat, pejabat pemkab mundur bareng-bareng. http://www.jpnn.com. Accessed 13 July 2017.
Suara Merdeka (2014). Pejabat pengadaan tak perlu takut. http://www.suaramerdeka.com. Accessed 17 May 2017.
Wibowo, R. (2017). Preventing maladministration in Indonesian public procurement. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
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.
Djatmiko case (2006). Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006 (Constitutional Court 25 July 2006).
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.
Kantaprawira case (2006) Decision Number 1974K/PID/2006 (Supreme Court 13 October 2006).
Butt, S. (2009). Unlawfulness’ and corruption under Indonesian law. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 45(2), 179–198.
Bintang Timur case (2014). Decision Number 100/Pid.Sus/TPK/2014/PN.SBY (Surabaya District Court 28 October 2014).
Bank Jatim (2017). Bank garansi. http://www.bankjatim.co.id. Accessed 21 June 2017.
Metrotv (2016). Deretan mobil listrik karya anak bangsa yang dicuekin. http://otomotif.metrotvnews.com. Accessed 07 Aug 2017.
Tjandra, R. (2009). Hukum keuangan negara. Jakarta: Grassindo.
Wiyono, R. (2012). Pembahasan undang-undang tindak pidana korupsi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
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.
Rajagukguk, E. (2006). Pengertian keuangan negara dan kerugian negara. http://www.perpustakaan.depkeu.go.id/FOLDERDOKUMEN/PENGERTIAN%20KEUANGAN%20NEGARA.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2017.
Ahmadi case (2016a). Decision Number 140/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.Jkt.Pst (Central Jakarta District Court 14 March 2016).
Ahmadi case (2016b). Decision Number 39/PID/TPK/2016/PT.DKI (Jakarta High (Appeal) Court 27 May 2016).
Ahmadi case (2016c). Decision Number 1628 K/PID.SUS/2016 (Supreme Court 7 November 2016).
Firdaus et al. case (2017). Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 (Constitutional Court 25 January 2017).
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.
Pompe, S. (2005). The Indonesian supreme court: A study of institutional collapse. Itacha: Cornell Southeast Asia Program.
Supardjaja, K. (2002). Ajaran sifat melawan hukum materiel dalam hukum pidana Indonesia. Bandung: Alumni.
Hieriej, E. (2016). Prinsip-prinsip hukum pidana. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka.
Kejaksaan Agung (2014). Laporan tahunan 2013. https://kejaksaan.go.id/upldoc/laptah/l2013f.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2017.
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.
Syamsudin, A. (2006). Koruptor “Versus” Penegak Hukum. http://www.unisosdem.org. Accessed 25 July 2017.
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.
Kompas (2017). ICW sebut vonis ringan koruptor bikin hukuman tak berefek jera. http://nasional.kompas.com. Accessed 10 July 2017.
KPK (2017). Jejak kasus. https://acch.kpk.go.id. Accessed 08 Aug 2017.
Butt, S., & Schuette, S. A. (2014). Assessing judicial performance in Indonesia: the court for corruption crimes. Crime, Law and Social Change, 62, 603–619.
Dennis, I. (2013). The law of evidence. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
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.
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.
US Court (2000). Jury instructions. http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/pdfforms/swsinstruct-civ.docx. Accessed 17 May 2017.
Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of evidence law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dicey, A. (1915). Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution. London: MacMillan.
Sofyan, A. (2013). Hukum acara pidana, suatu pengantar. Yogyakarta: Rangkang Education.
Pitlo, A. (1986). Pembuktian dan daluwarsa. Jakarta: Intermasa.
Subekti, R. (2003). Hukum pembuktian. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.
Harahap, Y. (2010). Pembahasan permasalahan dan penerapan KUHAP. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Hamzah, A., & Dahlan, I. (1984). Perbandingan KUHAP HIR dan komentar. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Harahap, Y. (2015). Hukum acara perdata. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
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.
Menpan (2014). RUU Adpem disahkan, tidak ada lagi kriminalisasi. http://www.menpan.go.id. Accessed 13 July 2017.
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9737-8