Jurnal Konstitusi
Vol 14, No 1 (2017)

Pergeseran Delik Korupsi dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016

Fatkhurohman Fatkhurohman (Fakultas Hukum Universitas Widyagama)
Nalom Kurniawan (Pusat P4TIK Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia)



Article Info

Publish Date
24 Jul 2017

Abstract

Putusan MK Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016 mencabut frasa "dapat" dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 juncto Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (UU Tipikor). Putusan MK ini menafsirkan bahwa frasa "dapat merugikan keuangan negara atau perekonomian negara" dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) dan Pasal 3 UU Tipikor harus dibuktikan dengan kerugian keuangan negara yang nyata (actual loss) bukan potensi atau perkiraan kerugian keuangan negara (potential loss). Dalam pertimbangannya, setidaknya terdapat empat tolok ukur yang menjadi ratio legis MK menggeser makna subtansi terhadap delik korupsi. Keempat tolok ukur tersebut adalah (1) nebis in idem dengan Putusan MK yang terdahulu yakni Putusan MK Nomor 003/PUU-IV/2006; (2) munculnya ketidakpastian hukum (legal uncertainty) dalam delik korupsi formiil sehingga diubah menjadi delik materiil; (3) relasi/harmonisasi antara frasa "dapat merugikan keuangan negara atau perekonomian negara" dalam pendekatan pidana pada UU Tipikor dengan pendekatan administratif pada Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (UU AP); dan (4) adanya dugaan kriminalisasi dari Aparatur Sipil Negara (ASN) dengan menggunakan frasa "dapat merugikan keuangan negara atau perekonomian negara" dalam UU Tipikor.Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016 revokes the phrase "may" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law No. 20 of 2001 on the amendment of Law No. 31 of 1999 on Eradication of Corruption (Corruption Act). Decision of this Court interpreted the phrase "may be detrimental to the state finance or economy of the state" in Article 2 (1) and Article 3 of Corruption Act must prove real state financial losses (actual loss) not a potential nor estimated financial losses of the state (potential losses). In the consideration of the judgment, at least, there are four benchmarks that become the ratio legis of the Court to shift the substance of the offense of corruption. The Four benchmarks are (1) nebis in idem with the previous Constitutional Court ruling that is Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006; (2) the emergence of legal uncertainty in the formal corruption offense that it is converted into material offense; (3) the relationship/harmonisation between the phrases "may be detrimental to the state finance or economy of the state" in the criminal approach on Corruption Law with an administrative approach to Law No. 30 of 2004 on Governmental Administration (UU AP); and (4) alleged criminalization of State Civil Apparatus (ASN) by using the phrase "may be detrimental to the state finance or economy of the state" in the Anti-Corruption Act.

Copyrights © 2017






Journal Info

Abbrev

jk

Publisher

Subject

Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Description

The aims of this journal is to provide a venue for academicians, researchers and practitioners for publishing the original research articles or review articles. The scope of the articles published in this journal deal with a broad range of topics in the fields of Constitutional Law and another ...