Publication Search

This study discusses the reform of criminal law regarding acts of abuse of power within the Indonesian legal system. Abuse of power committed by public officials constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law because it can harm society and weaken public trust in the government. The old Criminal Code inherited from the colonial era was considered incapable of providing an optimal deterrent effect against perpetrators of abuse of authority. Therefore, the enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the New Criminal Code became an important step in the reform of criminal law in Indonesia. This study aims to analyze criminal law reform policies in overcoming abuse of power and the effectiveness of their implementation in law enforcement. The results show that the new Criminal Code expands regulations regarding abuse of authority with stricter criminal sanctions and additional penalties in the form of revocation of office rights. However, its implementation still faces challenges such as political intervention, low integrity of law enforcement officials, and the potential overlap with the Corruption Eradication Law. Therefore, the success of criminal law reform requires the support of legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture that work in harmony.

This study aims to analyze the dynamics of interest groups in the food vendor appointment process in Medan City, particularly those based on political proximity. Using a qualitative approach with library research method and content analysis technique, data were collected from official documents, government reports, accredited scientific journals, laws and regulations, and publications from institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Government Procurement Policy Institute (LKPP), and the Statistics Indonesia (BPS). The analysis shows that the food vendor appointment process in Medan City is not entirely meritocratic. Political proximity and personal relationships play a dominant role as informal mechanisms in vendor selection. Procurement transparency remains limited, as reflected in the low public access to tender documents and vendor evaluations. This practice indicates systemic political patronage, which results in budget inefficiency, a decline in the quality of public services, and an erosion of public trust. This study recommends strengthening the electronic procurement system (e-procurement), increasing participatory oversight, and reforming the bureaucracy at the regional level.

Integrity is a fundamental value in realizing clean, transparent, and accountable public sector governance. Various integrity assessment instruments have been implemented in the public sector in Indonesia, such as the Integrity Assessment Survey (SPI) by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Integrity Zone (ZI) by the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PANRB), and IntoSAINT developed by INTOSAI. However, all three still have limitations. This study aims to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of these three instruments and develop an alternative assessment tool, the Integrity Assessment Tool (IAT), which can be an alternative choice to the integrity assessment model in Indonesia. This study uses a qualitative descriptive approach through literature studies and analysis of integrity policy documents, with a theoretical foundation of the OECD Integrity Framework and the Anti-Bribery Management System (SNI ISO 37001). The results show that the Integrity Assessment Tool is able to assess organizational integrity comprehensively and objectively through four main dimensions: history, performance, potential, and perception. This approach integrates quantitative, qualitative, and psychometric aspects to produce a more accurate and sustainable picture of the integrity position of public sector organizations. Theoretically, this research enriches the study of public sector integrity management, while practically, it provides guidance for government agencies in building a measurable, systematic, and sustainable integrity evaluation system as a basis for establishing a national model for integrity assessment.

The purpose of this writing is to analyze Article 14 of Law Number 31 of 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption has a delegative character, because its enactment depends on the provisions of other laws that expressly declare a violation as a criminal act of corruption. The construction of these norms in practice gives rise to ambivalence in law enforcement, especially when various acts that are detrimental to state finances occur in strategic sectors that are not explicitly qualified as corruption crimes in sectoral laws. This condition has the potential to create a legal vacuum and hinder the effectiveness of eradicating corruption as an extraordinary crime. This study aims to analyze the practice of implementing Article 14 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption and examine these provisions from the perspective of legal certainty, justice, and criminal law policy. The research method used is normative legal research with a legislative approach and a case approach. Research data was obtained through literature studies on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials that were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study show that the delegative and limiting nature of Article 14 has implications for the low predictability of the law and opens up ambivalence between norms and law enforcement practices. In reality, law enforcement officials often apply the Corruption Crime Law to acts that are normatively outside the scope of Article 14, taking into account the existence of state financial losses and the interests of substantive justice. Therefore, Article 14 needs to be interpreted systemically and progressively and supported by the reformulation of norms and harmonization of laws and regulations to be in line with the dynamics and complexity of modern corruption crimes.

Money laundering is a derivative crime that is frequently associated with corruption and has the potential to cause significant losses to state finances. Efforts to recover assets derived from criminal activities constitute an essential aspect of law enforcement aimed at restoring state losses and creating a deterrent effect for perpetrators. This study aims to analyze the authority of public prosecutors in the investigation of money laundering crimes as well as the mechanisms for state asset recovery based on the authority of the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office. The research method employed is normative juridical research using statutory and case approaches. The results of this study indicate that the Attorney General’s Office possesses clear and legally valid authority to conduct investigations into money laundering crimes as regulated under Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering and the Law on the Attorney General’s Office. Prosecutors are authorized to trace, seize, confiscate, and recover assets derived from criminal acts without first proving the predicate offense. This study further emphasizes that although the authority of the Attorney General’s Office has been normatively regulated, in practice, state asset recovery continues to face various obstacles, both in substantive and procedural law, such as inconsistencies in statutory regulations and the suboptimal implementation of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. Therefore, strengthening regulations and harmonizing legal policies are necessary to ensure that state asset recovery through the handling of money laundering crimes can be carried out more effectively and provide legal certainty.

This study examines the distortion between civil and criminal perspectives in the legal considerations (ratio decidendi) of Judex Juris in Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/Pid.Sus/2020. The decision lacks substantial criminal law considerations regarding the alleged corruption offense. Instead, the legal reasoning focuses on the fault or negligence of company directors, particularly the exception under Article 97 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, which embodies the Business Judgment Rule doctrine. Furthermore, these considerations are distorted by tort (onrechtmatige daad) as regulated in Article 1365 of the Civil Code juncto Article 138 paragraph (1) letter b of the Company Law. This research employs a legislative approach by analyzing various legal instruments, including the 1945 Constitution, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Limited Liability Company Law, State-Owned Enterprises Law, Judicial Power Law, Supreme Court Law, and the Corruption Eradication Laws. A conceptual approach is also utilized to examine theoretical concepts concerning corporate crime, directors' liabilities, state losses, tort, negligence from criminal and civil perspectives, business judgment rules, collective collegiality principles, and formal-material classification of legislation. The data comprises primary legal materials (legislation and court decisions) and secondary legal materials (legal literature and scientific journals). Analysis is conducted qualitatively by interpreting legal principles and their relevance to the court's considerations in the decision.

Corruption remains a systemic challenge in Indonesia, particularly in the administration of government grant funding, undermining public trust, institutional integrity, and sustainable development. Despite the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, KPK) and other specialized bodies, law enforcement continues to face institutional, political, and cultural barriers. This study explores how Islamic criminal law can strengthen anti-corruption strategies by integrating empirical legal practices with normative religious principles. Using a normative-empirical socio-legal approach, the research combines case studies of KPK’s enforcement processes with doctrinal analysis of fiqh jināyah. Data were collected through legal document analysis, policy reviews, and qualitative evaluations of institutional reports and court rulings. Findings indicate that Islamic legal concepts such as khiyānah (breach of trust), ghulūl (misappropriation of public assets), amānah (trustworthiness), ʿadl (justice), and maṣlaḥah (public interest) provide a strong ethical foundation that complements positive law enforcement. While KPK has demonstrated effectiveness in investigation, prosecution, and prevention, its performance is constrained by political pressure, regulatory gaps, and limited resources. The study concludes that embedding Islamic ethical principles into governance, legal education, and public administration can enhance institutional accountability, reinforce preventive measures, and cultivate a culture of integrity. This normative convergence advances socio-legal pluralism and offers practical insights for value-based anti-corruption policy in Indonesia.

This study discusses the function of corporate criminal liability for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), particularly SOEs, by examining a case of corruption in the sale of commodities at Perum Bulog Jakarta in 2022-2023, which caused financial losses to the state amounting to approximately IDR 7.192 billion. This case illustrates the abuse of authority by SOE officials, which not only reflects individual violations but also is a symptom of weaknesses in the culture of internal control and compliance in state-owned companies. The purpose of this study is to examine the regulation and application of the principle of corporate criminal liability in State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) with reference to Law Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes, the latest Criminal Code (Law Number 1 of 2023), and Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016. The method used is normative legal research with a juridical approach, which focuses on the review of legislation, the concept of corporate criminal liability, and the analysis of related court decisions. The results of the study show that acts of corruption involving Bulog have fulfilled the elements of corporate criminal liability, because they were carried out in the exercise of official authority and were intended for the benefit of the institution. The application of the provisions in the new Criminal Code, particularly Articles 45 to 47 and Article 118, confirms the position of corporations as legal subjects in the criminal law system. The implications of this research highlight the need to strengthen the Good Corporate Governance (GCG) system in SOEs and the need for consistent enforcement of corporate criminal liability by law enforcement officials to ensure justice, transparency, and the prevention of structural corruption in Indonesia.  

This study aims to analyze the considerations of the judge in the decision of the Kupang District Court No. 81/Pid.Sus-TPK/2022/PN Kpg and the legal implications of the application of Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. This research uses a normative legal method with a statutory and conceptual approach. The results show that the application of Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law in this case is incorrect, as the defendant is not a public official and does not have authority over the management of state finances or assets. It was also found that there was a misapplication of the law (error in juris), an error in determining the subject of the law (error in persona), and an inaccuracy in the object of the case (error in objecto). This study concludes that the case is more appropriately classified as an administrative error by state apparatus rather than a corruption crime. Academically, this research reinforces the distinction between administrative law and criminal law regarding corruption. Socially, this research emphasizes the importance of legal certainty protection and the prevention of criminalization of civil society. This study provides an important contribution to the development of legal theory, as well as the protection of individual rights in the context of criminal law.

This kind of research can reveal a purpose, namely to be able to carry out an analysis of the important role of the government together with the community in realizing policies to combat corruption of village funds. It is necessary to understand that village funds have been made one of the government's priority programs in order to increase the level of prosperity of rural communities and village development through the Village Law. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify policy solutions provided by the government and the community to prevent corruption of village funds. This study utilizes a literature study method through a qualitative approach that can be used to assess the role of the government and the community in implementing policies to combat corruption of village funds as an effort to uphold the integrity of the village administration system. Meanwhile, the research data sources obtained came from secondary data, which included the collection of scientific journals in the last five years, reading books in the last ten years, reports in the mass media, and government regulations. The findings of this study describe that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has identified several loopholes that are often exploited by village officials in misappropriating Village Funds. Then there were 98 cases of corruption that caused the state to lose up to Rp. 37.2 billion. This creates an urgency for the government and the community to play a role in creating village regulations that are capable of overcoming corruption of village funds.

. Corruption is an extraordinary crime that has a systemic impact on economic stability, governance and the protection of human rights. Indonesia and Singapore show significant differences in the effectiveness of corruption eradication, despite both applying the rule of law principle. Indonesia established the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) through Law Number 30 of 2002 jo. Law No. 19/2019 as an independent institution with powers to investigate and prosecute, but its effectiveness has been weakened by political interference, regulatory revisions, and bureaucratic obstacles. Singapore, on the other hand, relies on the Corrupt Practices Investigation (CPIB) under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960, which has historical legitimacy, stable political support, and consistent regulations. This difference in effectiveness is reflected in the 2024 Corruption Perception Index, where Indonesia ranks 99th with a score of 37/100, while Singapore ranks 3rd with a score of 84/100. Although the KPK normatively has broader authority, 2024, where Indonesia ranked 99th with a score of 37/100, while Singapore ranked 3rd with a score of 84/100. Although the KPK normatively has broader authority, empirical results show that the success of corruption eradication is determined by institutional integrity, regulatory consistency, and structural independence. This research uses a normative juridical method with a literature study approach and deductive thinking method to analyze the legal basis, and implementation of the two institutions. The results of this study found that the differences between the anti-corruption institutions of the two countries do not merely depend on legal instruments, but on political structure, organizational culture, and institutional commitment in upholding integrity. It is expected to provide normative recommendations to strengthen Indonesia's anti-corruption institution, namely the KPK, through structural, regulative, and institutional reforms

This study aims to analyze the legal accountability of three judges of the Surabaya District Court who were proven to have been involved in bribery practices during the examination process of a case that resulted in the acquittal of Gregorius Ronald Tannur, the son of Edward Tannur, a former member of the Indonesian House of Representatives from the National Awakening Party (PKB). The study focuses on identifying the forms of legal responsibility that may be imposed on judges who receive bribes, as well as examining the abuse of judicial authority that influenced the issuance of the court decision. This research employs a normative juridical method using a statutory and case approach, through an analysis of Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, Decision of the Surabaya District Court Number 454/Pid.B/2024/PN SBY, and the Joint Decree of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission of 2009 concerning the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judicial Conduct. The findings indicate that judges proven to have accepted bribes may be subject to criminal sanctions in the form of imprisonment and/or fines, ethical sanctions imposed by the Judicial Commission, as well as administrative sanctions in the form of dishonorable dismissal, and that court decisions rendered by judges involved in bribery may be challenged through available legal remedies. This study underscores the importance of strengthening internal and external oversight mechanisms and enhancing transparency in judicial proceedings to maintain and restore public trust in the judiciary.

This study analyzes the practice of tender rigging, which is a dominant form of irregularity in government procurement of goods and services. The study focuses on identifying and analyzing the modus operandi, which includes the use of borrowing flags, document manipulation, leaking of the Self-Estimated Price (HPS), and price agreements between participants (tender arisan). The research findings reveal that the collusion occurs in two patterns: vertical between providers and the committee, and horizontal between providers. Both patterns fulfill the elements of unlawfulness as stipulated in Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. This practice of tender rigging causes significant state financial losses and undermines fair business competition. Therefore, the effectiveness of law enforcement depends heavily on accurate proof of state losses and good coordination between law enforcement officials and the Business Competition Supervisory Commission to ensure fair resolution in accordance with applicable legal provisions.

The number of corruption cases in Indonesia continues to increase. The termination of the investigation of alleged corruption at the Aceh Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the Banda Aceh City Resort Police based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus and Law Enforcement Apparatus raises problems because it is contrary to the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes which emphasizes that the return of state losses does not erase the crime. This inconsistency raises questions about the validity of stopping corruption cases through the Memorandum of Understanding. This study aims to assess the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus and the Law Enforcement Apparatus as the basis for stopping corruption cases, as well as to outline the legal process that should be taken by the Banda Aceh City Resort Police. This research uses a normative juridical method with a legislative, case, and conceptual approach, based on secondary data from various legal materials. The analysis was carried out in an analytical descriptive manner. The results of the study show that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus and the Law Enforcement Apparatus cannot be the basis for the termination of corruption cases at the Aceh Truth and Reconciliation Commission because it is only coordinated, not a source of criminal law. The note is only suitable for use to follow up on reports through audits. In addition, the Banda Aceh City Resort Police should continue the case to the investigation stage because the elements of corruption, evidence, as well as elements of mens rea and actus reus have been fulfilled without any justification or excuse. It is suggested that the memorandum of understanding can only be a coordinating guideline, not a basis for stopping corruption cases. Any report must still be processed, and the Banda Aceh City Resort Police are obliged to continue the investigation even though the state losses have been returned.

Corruption in Indonesia is not merely a moral transgression but an extraordinary economic crime that depletes national resources. The ultimate objective of corruption eradication, therefore, must be the restoration of state financial losses (asset recovery).  However, the current formulation of the criminal law system specifically Article 18 of Law No. 31 of 1999 contains a critical policy flaw. The provision of "Subsidiary Imprisonment" (Pidana Pengganti) allows convicts to substitute their financial restitution obligations with a disproportionately short prison term. This mechanism inadvertently provides an economic incentive for corruptors to conceal assets and choose imprisonment, resulting in significant state revenue loss. This study aims to critique the current penal policy formulation and propose a comprehensive reformulation of the compensation system. The research employs a normative-juridical method with a statutory and conceptual approach, utilizing the "Economic Analysis of Law" theory to evaluate the efficiency of sanctions. The study argues that the penal policy must shift from a "person-based" approach (in personam) to an "asset-based" approach (in rem). It is imperative to abolish the subsidiary imprisonment option for high-value corruption and implement "Non-Conviction Based Forfeiture" to maximize the recovery of state losses. Furthermore, this policy shift requires law enforcers with high-level cognitive skills to trace complex financial trails.

Corruption in Indonesia has become a systemic and complex issue, posing a threat to economic, social, and political stability. Despite various efforts, including the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission and robust law enforcement, Indonesia’s Corruption Perception Index has remained stagnant or declined in recent years. This is primarily due to the inadequacy of conventional audit methods, which struggle to detect complex and hidden corruption schemes. This study examines how the role of investigative audits by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) can be optimized through synergy with the Whistleblowing System (WBS) to enhance corruption eradication efforts in Indonesia. Investigative audits, which focus on detecting fraud, are crucial as they can convert audit evidence into legal proof in corruption cases. However, the BPK’s role is often hindered by limited human resources, independence, and weak coordination. Using qualitative research and a literature review, this study analyzes relevant documents, books, scientific journals, and official reports to identify and classify relevant data. The findings indicate that strong synergy between BPK's investigative audits and the WBS is essential. Optimizing these two instruments requires significant reforms, including strengthening whistleblower protection laws, improving inter-agency collaboration, and fostering a robust anti-corruption culture. The study concludes that BPK’s investigative audits are effective in uncovering state losses, but their success depends on follow-up actions and coordination with law enforcement. The WBS can detect corruption early, but its effectiveness is limited by weak whistleblower protection and lack of trust in internal reporting channels.

This study examines the crucial role of political ethics in anti-corruption efforts in Indonesia, focusing on Pancasila as the moral and philosophical foundation (Nasoha et al., 2024; Atqiya & Nasoha, 2024). Through a qualitative literature review, the research reveals that weaknesses in political ethics significantly contribute to corrupt practices among elites and state institutions. The study highlights that corruption often stems from a lack of adherence to ethical standards within the political system. Therefore, strengthening political ethics is essential to preventing corruption. The principles of justice, accountability, and public responsibility are critical to this effort, ensuring that government actions align with ethical values. Pancasila’s core values, especially social justice and gotong royong (mutual cooperation), provide a solid moral framework for fostering a transparent, fair, and integrated government system. By embedding these values into political practice, Indonesia can strengthen its anti-corruption efforts, improve public trust, and promote a more just and accountable political environment.

Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes (Tipikor Law) requires the existence of state financial losses as an important element in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3. Following Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016, proof of state losses must be actual losses, rather than potential losses. However, in practice, there is a discrepancy between legal norms and the reality of law enforcement, especially in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) engaged in banking. There is disharmony between the Anti-Corruption Law, the State Finance Law, and the SOE Law, particularly regarding the financial status of SOEs as separate state assets. This study uses a normative legal method with a statute approach. The results show that proving state financial losses in banking SOEs related to corruption requires an examination by an authorised institution to declare state financial losses. Based on Article 10 paragraph (1) of Law No. 15 of 2006 concerning the Audit Board, it is explained that the Audit Board has the authority to determine the existence or absence of state losses. The audit process carried out by the Audit Board on state-owned banking enterprises suspected of causing state financial losses must be an investigative audit process, not a state loss calculation audit that is usually carried out on government institutions.

The proposed Asset Seizure Bill has become urgent because the existing criminal justice system, as stipulated in the Corruption Eradication Law and the Money Laundering Law, has not been effective in recovering assets derived from crime, especially if the defendant dies, flees, or the criminal proceedings are halted. This study aims to analyze in detail the extent to which the Asset Seizure Bill can be integrated into the existing criminal and civil procedural law framework in Indonesia, as well as how a transparent and accountable mechanism for managing seized assets can be established for the recovery of assets in the public interest. The method used is normative legal research with a legal, conceptual, case, and comparative approach. The findings show that this bill adopts the mechanism of Asset Forfeiture Without Criminalization with an in-rem approach (targeting assets, not perpetrators) through civil court proceedings, as well as implementing the concept of unexplained wealth to expand the scope of forfeiture and close legal loopholes. The implication is that this bill is a strategic instrument in eradicating corruption and recovering state losses amounting to trillions of rupiah, but its success is highly dependent on careful formulation, ensuring due process of law, and the existence of political will and readiness of law enforcement officials.

This research aims to examine the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in handling connectivity corruption cases after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 87/PUU-XXI/2023. This research is a normative legal research with a statute approach and a case approach, using primary and secondary legal materials collected through literature studies. The results of the study show that the Constitutional Court interpreted Article 42 of the KPK Law constitutionally conditionally, so that the KPK remains authorized to handle connectivity cases as long as the handling begins from the beginning by the KPK. This decision provides legal certainty as well as strengthening legitimacy for the KPK in handling cases involving legal subjects from the general and military courts at the same time. This study also shows that structural barriers, multi-interpreted legal substance, and sectoral legal culture are serious challenges in connectivity law enforcement practices. Therefore, it is necessary to harmonize regulations and strengthen the legal structure and culture between institutions in order to realize a more effective, fair, and non-discriminatory eradication of corruption.