Elements of Article 2 of the Corruption Crime Law After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25139/lex.v9i2.10488Keywords:
Corruption, Civil Servants, Constitutional CourtAbstract
This research aims to analyze the implementation of Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006 after Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 and to analyze the relationship between the decision of Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 on Civil Servants. There is nebis in idem between Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 and the previous Constitutional Court Decision, namely Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006. The similarity is in the form of the same basis of testing and the material being tested, namely Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The previous Constitutional Court Decision ruled that the phrase “may harm state finances or the state economy” in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law was not contrary to the 1945 Constitution. But with the latest Constitutional Court Decision, on the contrary, it was declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. The change in the Constitutional Court's stance in the latest Decision raises inconsistencies in interpretation, which can lead to legal uncertainty and there is no criminalization implication of the State Civil Apparatus (ASN) from the phrase “may harm state finances or the state economy” in the Anti-Corruption Law as feared by the Petitioner. Discretionary policies (freis ermessen) have received a legal umbrella in the AP Law, and if based on the principles of good public governance, there will be no criminalization. Because what is wrong is not the discretionary policy, but the evil intent of the policy makers to enrich themselves, others, or corporations that are considered to harm state finances.
References
BOOK
Marbun, SF & Moh Mahfud MD, Pokok-Pokok Hukum Administrasi Negara (Yogyakarta: Liberty).
Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (USA: University of California Press, 1977).
Muslimin, Amrah, Beberapa Asas dan Pengertian Pokok tentang Administrasi dan Hukum Administrasi (Bandung: Alumni, 1985).
Peter Mahmud Marzuki, Penelitian Hukum, 13th ed (Jakarta: Kencana, 2017).
Putra, Eduard Awang Maha, Peraturan Kebijakan (Beleidsregel) dalam Hukum Positif Indonesia (Yogyakarta: Samudra Biru, 2024).
Soesatyo, Bambang, Presiden dalam Pusaran Politik Sengkuni (Jakarta: RM BOOKS, PT. Wahana Semesta Intermedia, 2014).
JOURNAL
Abidah, Tsuwaibah et al, “Comparison of the Civil Law System between the Netherlands and Indonesia in the Application of Criminal Law” (2025) 1:1 J Verum Legis Indones 38–44, online: <https://journal.abhinaya.co.id/index.php/jvli/article/view/41>.
Ashalirrohman, Yusron, “Asset Forfeiture for the Offense of Illicit Enrichment: Between Eradication and Deterrence” (2024) 8:1 Lex J Kaji Huk dan Keadilan 1–12.
———, “Deontology and Equality in Corruption Law Enforcement” (2025) 1:1 Iuris Philos J 1–10, online: <https://jurnal.jurisprudenceinsights.com/index.php/Iurisphilosophiajournal>.
Fathudin, “Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Dugaan Penyalahgunaan Wewenang) Pejabat Publik (Perspektif Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan)” (2015) 2:1 J Cita Huk 126.
Fatkhurohman & Nalom Kurniawan, “Pergeseran Delik Korupsi Dalam Putusaan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016” (2017) 14:1 J Konstitusi.
Janis, Novella, Audi H Pondaag & Adi T Koesoemo, “Kerugian Keuangan Negara Menjadi Dasar Penyidikan Perkara Pidana Korupsi Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Kostitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016” (2023) 12:4 J Fak Huk Univ Sam Ratulangi Lex Priv 1.
Maulidin, La Ode, “Analisis Putusan MK dalam Menyelesaikan Perselisihan Hasil Pemilukada Ditinjau dari Perspektif Teori Hukum Progresif (Kajian Terhadap Putusan MK atas Sengketa Hasil Pemilu Kepala Daerah Jawa Timur dan Putusan MK dalam Perkara perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan ” (2011) 4:1 J Konstitusi Widyagama 67.
Prahassacitta, Vidya, “Perubahan Makna Terhadap Pasal 2 dan 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi” (2018) 15:3 J Konstitusi.
Ramadhan, Muh Zafri, “Failure of Criminal Sanctions in Law Enforcement Environmental Crime in Indonesia” (2025) 1:1 J Verum Legis Indones 28–37, online: <https://journal.abhinaya.co.id/index.php/jvli/article/view/31>.
Silalahi, Rio Rinaldi, “Penegakan Hukum Pemberatasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016” (2018) 2:3 LEX Renaiss 304–320.
Soraya, Joice, Eduard Awang Maha Putra & Lalu Aria Nata Kusuma, “Construction of the Form and Content of Policy Regulations (Beleidsregel) in the Amendment to the Law on Government Administration” (2025) 9:2 Lex J Kaji Huk dan Keadilan 219–237, online: <https://ejournal.unitomo.ac.id/index.php/hukum/article/view/10307>.
Supandi, “Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (Relevansinya Terhadap Disiplin Penegakan Hukum Administrasi Negara dan Penegakan Hukum Pidana)” 7.
PAPERS
Hadjon, Philipus M, Tanggung Jawab Jabatan dan Tanggung Jawab Pribadi Atas Tindak Pemerintahan (Bogor, 2010).
WEBSITE
Syamsudin, Amir, “Putusan MK dalam Penegakan Hukum Korupsi”, (2017), online: Kompas.com.
