When Double Intention Ignored: A Study of Corruption Judicial Decisions

Muhammad Arif S., dan Mahrus Ali. When Double Intention Ignored:... 459 When Double Intention Ignored: A Study of Corruption Judicial Decisions Muhammad Arif Setiawan dan Mahrus Ali Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia Yogyakarta Indonesia Jln. Tamansiswa No. 158 Yogyakarta Indonesia ; Received: 8 Juni 2021; Accepted: 10 Agustus 2021; Published: 25 Agustus 2021 DOI: 10.20885/iustum.vol28.iss3.art1 Abstract This study aims to analyze the application of participating perpetrator in court decisions in corruption cases. The research question is whether the double intention as a condition for participating perpetrator in the decision of a corruption case is fulfilled? As a normative legal research, the study in this research is focused on the ratio of four decisions on corruption cases, especially the concept of criminal participation. The results of the study concluded that the double-intentional evidence as a condition for participating perpetrator so was ignored by the panel of judges. The role of involvement of each defendant in the offense of participating perpetrator in the ongoing decision is not described. The judge is not even able to distinguish between the conditions of a person as a perpetrator and the participating perpetrator. In the decisions studied, the judges also mixed the concepts of ordering, advocating, and participating in committing criminal acts of corruption. The judge's inaccuracy in the use of double intention resulted in the emergence of an unfair sentence. Therefore, this study suggests that the Supreme Court should make guidelines for the application of participating perpetrator in corruption cases. Key Words: Corruption case; double intention; participation to crime; ratio dedicendi Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis penerapan turut serta dalam putusan pengadilan perkara tindak pidana korupsi. Pertanyaan penelitian adalah apakah kesengajaan ganda sebagai syarat turut serta melakukan dipenuhi putusan perkara tindak pidana korupsi? Sebagai penelitian hukum normatif, kajian dalam penelitian difokuskan kepada ratio dedicendi empat putusan perkara korupsi terutama konsep turut serta. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa pembuktian kesengajaan ganda sebagai syarat turut serta melakukan diabaikan oleh majelis hakim. Peran keterlibatan tiap-tiap terdakwa pada delik turut serta pada putusan yang dikaji tidak tergambarkan. Hakim bahkan tidak mampu membedakan antara syarat seseorang sebagai pelaku dengan pelaku turut serta. Dalam putusan yang dikaji, hakim juga mencampurkan konsep menyuruh, menganjurkan, dan turut serta melakukan tindak pidana korupsi. Ketidaktepatan hakim dalam penggunaan kesengajaan ganda mengakibatkan timbulnya pemidanaan yang tidak adil. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini menyarakan agar Mahkamah Agung membuat pedoman penerapan turut serta melakukan dalam putusan perkara tindak pidana korupsi. Kata-kata Kunci: Perkara korupsi; turut serta melakukan delik; kesengajaan ganda; pertimbangan hukum hakim 460 Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM NO. 3 VOL. 28 SEPTEMBER 2021: 459 - 480 Introduction Corruption is widely accepted as one of the transnational organized crimes committed with a very complex modus operandi.1 Many actors are involved on a massive scale,2 and are difficult to detect.3 In Indonesia, this can be seen in the BLBI corruption case,4 Wisma Atlet case of Hambalang,5 bribery of the former Chief of the Constitutional Court, Akil Mochtar,6 and mega corruption of E-KTP.7 In these cases, Article 55 paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code is often used in both the prosecutors’ charges and the judges' verdicts. Which means, the concept of participation to crime (medeplegen) has become an important indictment for charging the perpetrator. It is clear that several kinds of offenses in Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 (Anti-Corruption Law) require specific offender. Article 3 can only be done by someone who has public authority, Article 5 paragraph (2), Article 11, and Article 12 point a and b can also only be carried out by civil servants or state officials. Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 12 point c and d which can only be perpetrated by a judge or a lawyer. The limitation of the subject of this offense has serious consequences for participation to crime (medeplegen). They are the ones who qualify as perpetrators (pleger). Apart from that, they are only appropriately placed as participant actors because they are not required to have the same eigenshap (subject, characteristics, and quality) as a perpetrator. The provision of participation to crime is precisely aimed at 1 John D. Becker, “NGO’s with an Attitude and Bayonets: A Consideration of Transnational Criminal Organizations”, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 2003, hlm. 135. David A. Sadoff, “How Law Enforcement Cooperation abroad is Pivotal to Sustainable Development at Home”, Boston University International Law Journal, 2017, hlm. 341 2 Heba Shams, “The Fight against Extraterritorial Corruption and the Use of Money Laundering Control”, Law and Business Review of the Americas, 2001, hlm. 88-89. Patrick X. Delaney, “Transnational Corruption: Regulation Across Borders”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 2007, hlm. 421 3 Kevin E. Davis, Guillermo Jorge, Maíra R. Machado, “Transnational Anticorruption Law in Action: Cases from Argentina and Brazil”, Law and Social Inquiry, 2015, hlm. 665. Masyhudi, “Membangun Sistem Integritas untuk Pemberantasan Korupsi dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana”, Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 26, 1, 2019, hlm. 45 4 J. Danang, Widoyoko, “Reproduksi Korupsi: Studi Kasus Jaksa Urip Tri Gunawan”, Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Vol. 42, No.1, 2013, hlm. 16-17 5 Mochtar Touwe, Iqbal Sultan dan Hasrullah, “Investigasi Majalah Berita Mingguan Tempo dalam Kasus Korupsi Megaproyek Sarana Olahraga Hambalang”, Jurnal Analisis, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015, hlm. 90-91. 6 I Wayan Joniarta, “Banalitas Korupsi di Indonesia (Suatu Tinjauan dari Perspektif Budaya)”, Jurnal Ilmiah Dinamika Sosial, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2018, hlm. 155 7 Rina Sovianti, “Analisis Framing: Pemberitaan Penangkapan Kasus Korupsi E-KTP Setya Novanto di Media Daring Detik.Com dan Kompas.Com”, Jurnal Komunikasi, Masyarakat dan Keamanan, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019, hlm. 49 Muhammad Arif S., dan Mahrus Ali. When Double Intention Ignored:... 461 expanding the scope of the offense including the subject of the offense so that the involvement of people who do not meet the quality as perpetrators of offenses can still be subject to participation.8 The aforementioned perspective is important for the judge when the Public Prosecutor uses together Article 55 paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code with the core offense in the Anti-Corruption Law. Inaccuracies will lead to mistake in formulating participation to crime in the judge’s legal considerations (ratio dedicendi). Therefore, it is important to examine the accuracy of the use of double intention as an element of (...truncated)