Legal Analysis of Article 3 Paragraph (1) and Article 2 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2001 Concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption: A Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 1481 K/Pid.Sus/2018

Volume 6, Number 1, 2025 https://ijble.com/index.php/journal/index Legal Analysis of Article 3 Paragraph (1) and Article 2 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2001 Concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption A Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 1481 K/Pid.Sus/2018 Syahnisura E Tuahta Sitepu1, Rodiatun Adawiyah2, Deraldo Natalino Ginting3 Fakultas Hukum Universitas Prima Indonesia , , Corresponding authors: ABSTRACT This research analyzes the application of Article 3 Paragraph 1 and Article 2 Paragraph 1 of Law Number 20 Year 2001 concerning the Amendment to Law Number 31 Year 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption, particularly through a case study of Supreme Court Decision Number 1481 K/Pid.Sus/2018. The study aims to delve into judicial considerations in deciding corruption cases and contribute to the development of concepts and theories of justice within Indonesian criminal law. The methodology employed is a normative juridical approach with descriptiveanalytical methods. The findings indicate that the Supreme Court's decision aligns with existing legal provisions, unlike the decisions rendered by the District Court and High Court. These lower court rulings were not based on clear legal provisions, specifically Article 12 letter e combined with Article 12A Paragraph (2) of Law Number 31 Year 1999 Jo Law Number 20 Year 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption, which stipulates a minimum imprisonment of 4 years and a maximum of 20 years. This discrepancy has rendered the District Court and High Court decisions inconsistent with applicable law. Keywords: Eradication, Criminal Acts, Corruption INTRODUCTION Corruption represents a deviation from the proper exercise of public office, where public officials exploit their position for personal, familial, or group gain, thereby violating legal norms and undermining public trust. According to Syamsuddin (2011), corruption encompasses not only unlawful enrichment but also constitutes a breach of ethical and constitutional principles essential to the integrity of state governance. In criminal law theory, corruption is considered a substantive offense (materiële delicten), particularly following legislative developments that emphasize its harmful consequences to the state and society. A major turning point in Indonesia’s anti-corruption legal framework occurred with the enactment of Law Number 20 of 2001, which amended Law Number 31 of 1999. This amendment shifted the characterization of corruption offenses from formal offenses to material offenses, thereby placing greater emphasis on the actual or potential harm caused by corrupt acts, particularly in terms of state financial losses (Assegaf, 2013). This development was further reinforced by Constitutional Court decisions that 765 Volume 6, Number 1, 2025 https://ijble.com/index.php/journal/index interpreted state loss as not necessarily needing to be actual or quantifiable, but rather as sufficiently proven through potential or indirect losses caused by unlawful conduct. Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law provide distinct legal foundations. Article 2 criminalizes any act that unlawfully enriches oneself or others and causes a loss to state finances, while Article 3 emphasizes abuse of authority, opportunity, or means arising from one's position that results in similar harm. This distinction often leads to interpretive challenges in legal practice, particularly in determining the appropriate article to apply based on the evidentiary burden of proving state losses. Such challenges are evident in cases like the Sem Beti case in Kupang. At the District Court level, the judiciary applied Article 3, which traditionally requires demonstrable state financial loss. However, at the Supreme Court level, the case was reinterpreted under Article 2, shifting the focus toward unlawful enrichment irrespective of direct financial quantification. This inconsistency in legal interpretation underscores the issue of legal uncertainty and may give rise to legal injustice, as inconsistent verdicts compromise the public’s faith in the judiciary. The principles of legal certainty (rechtzekerheid) and equality before the law are essential pillars of a functioning legal system. Von Hirsch (1993) emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing to prevent disparities that erode the credibility of legal institutions. In this regard, uniform application of legal provisions is crucial to uphold the rule of law and ensure that anti-corruption measures have a tangible deterrent effect. This analysis also draws attention to Civil Court Decision Number 111/Pdt.G/2022/PN JMB, which, although civil in nature, provides insight into how legal ambiguity and noncompliance with procedural obligations—such as failure to submit requisite legal documents—can perpetuate disputes and hinder fair resolution. Such examples further illustrate the broader implications of legal inconsistency and the necessity for clear jurisprudential standards. By examining Supreme Court Decision Number 1481 K/Pid.Sus/2018, this study aims to critically assess the legal reasoning employed in differentiating between the application of Article 2 and Article 3. The goal is to contribute to the discourse on strengthening judicial integrity and consistency within Indonesia’s anti-corruption legal framework. METHOD This research employs a normative juridical approach, commonly referred to as doctrinal legal research, which focuses on the study of legal norms, statutory provisions, and court decisions to examine the application of minimum criminal sanctions in corruption cases. The normative approach allows for an in-depth analysis of legal theories, concepts, and regulations—particularly those contained within the Indonesian Penal Code and Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption. The purpose is to understand how the law should be interpreted and applied consistently across different judicial levels in relation to corruption offenses. In addition, the study adopts an analytical-descriptive approach to systematically present and explain the legal issues at hand, focusing on judicial reasoning and the consistency of statutory interpretation. This approach is supported by three legal 766 Volume 6, Number 1, 2025 https://ijble.com/index.php/journal/index research methods: the statute approach, which analyzes relevant legislation; the conceptual approach, which examines the foundational legal concepts guiding judicial interpretation; and the case approach, which involves a detailed analysis of Supreme Court Decision Number 1481 K/Pid.Sus/2018. These methods together aim to reveal the normative basis of judicial decisions and assess the extent to which they align with the principles of justice, legal certainty, and proportionality. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Implementation of Corruption Crimes within Crimi (...truncated)