Prof. Dr. Suhariningsih,, S.H., S.U., and Dr. Sihabudin,, S.H., M.H., and Dr. Bambang Winarno,, S.H., M.S. (2018) Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Pimpinan Bank Indonesia Dalam Menetapkan Kebijakan Penanganan Krisis Sistem Keuangan Di Indonesia. Doktor thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.
Abstract
Di berbagai negara di dunia, pada umumnya fungsi bank sentral dalam sistem keuangan meliputi: a) mengontrol peredaran uang; b) menjaga stabilitas pasar uang; c) menjaga mekanisme sistem pembayaran; d) mengawasi sistem perbankan; dan (e) sebagai the Lender of Last Resort (LOLR) yaitu memberikan pinjaman terakhir kepada bank-bank yang mengalami kesulitan likuiditas atau sebagai bankir dari bank-bank (banker’s bank). Indonesia pernah mengalami krisis sistem keuangan pada 1997/1998 dan untuk penanganan krisis tersebut, Bank Indonesia sebagai bank sentral dan sebagai LOLR menetapkan kebijakan fasilitas Bantuan Likuiditas Bank Indonesia (BLBI) yang berdampak pada tingginya biaya fiskal yang harus ditanggung Negara yaitu sebasar Rp144,5 triliun. Pada krisis sistem keuangan yang terjadi pada 2008, Bank Indonesia menetapkan kebijakan pemberian Fasilitas Pendanaan Jangka Pendek (FPJP) dan Bail-out kepada Bank Century sebesar Rp6,7 triliun. Kebijakan atau diskresi BLBI telah menimbulkan problema hukum, yaitu diprosesnya 3 mantan anggota Direksi BI, yaitu Hendrobudijanto, Paul Sutopo dan Heru Soepraptomo dalam tindak pidana korupsi BLBI dan oleh telah dinyatakan terbukti bersalah “Menyalahgunakan Kewenangan” dalam tindak pidana korupsi (tipikor) oleh Mahkamah Agung (MA-RI). Begitu pula Kebijakan FPJP dan Bail-out Bank Century, dimana salah satu Pimpinan BI yaitu Budi Mulya, mantan Deputi Gubernur, telah diadili dan dinyatakan bersalah melakukan perbuatan “Melawan Hukum" dalam perkara tipikor oleh MA-RI. Sehubungan dengan kondisi di atas, maka timbul permasalahan yaitu sejauh mana kebijakan Pimpinan BI dalam penanganan krisis sistem keuangan memberikan nilai manfaat bagi masyarakat? Kondisi ini juga tidak mencerminkan nilai keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi Pimpinan BI sebagai pejabat pengambil kebijakan, mengingat adanya ketentuan perlindungan hukum sesuai Pasal 45 UU No.23/1999 jo. UU No.6/2009 (UU-BI). Ketentuan ini mengatur bahwa Pimpinan BI tidak dapat dihukum karena telah mengambil kebijakan yang sejalan dengan tugas dan wewenangnya, sepanjang dilakukan dengan itikad baik. Melihat fenomena di atas, maka timbul permasalahan yang akan dibahas dalam penelitian ini yaitu 1) Mengapa kebijakan Pimpinan BI dalam BLBI pada 1997/1998 dikategorikan sebagai perbuatan “Menyalahgunakan Kewenangan” dalam tipikor dan kebijakan Pimpinan BI untuk penanganan krisis sistem keuangan pada 2008 dalam bentuk pemberian FPJP dan Bail-out kepada Bank Century dikategorikan sebagai perbuatan “Melawan Hukum” dalam tipikor?; 2) Apa tanggung jawab hukum Pimpinan BI dalam kebijakan penanganan krisis sistem keuangan?; 3) Apa landasan teoritis pemberian perlindungan hukum bagi Pimpinan BI dalam menghadapi proses hukum di pengadilan? Dalam penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif atau penelitian hukum doctrinal, dengan obyek utama adalah substansi hukum terkait dengan tugas dan kewenangan Bank Indonesia, khususnya dalam menetapkan kebijakan penanganan krisis sistem keuangan dan perlindungan hukum kepada Pimpinan BI menurut hukum Indonesia. Untuk menjawab permasalahan di atas, teori yang digunakan sebagai pisau Analisa adalah: 1) teori diskresi; 2) teori tanggung jawab hukum; 3) teori perlindungan hokum; dan 4) teori keadilan. Penelitian dan pembahasan dilakukan terhadap kebijakan Pejabat Pemerintahan dalam perspektif tipikor, dasar kebijakan BLBI 1997/1998 dan dasar kebijakan pemberian FPJP dan Bail-out Bank Century 2008, kajian terhadap putusan pengadilan atas kasus tipikor kebijakan BLBI serta kebijakan pemberian FPJP dan Bail-out Bank Century, juga mengenai pertanggungjawaban hukum Pimpinan BI dalam kebijakan penanganan krisis sistem keuangan. Selanjutnya penelitian difokuskan kepada pengaturan perlindungan hukum Pejabat Pemerintahan menurut hukum di Indonesia, perlindungan hukum dalam perspektif keputusan bisnis oleh direksi BUMN berdasarkan doktrin Business Judgment Rule (sebagai studi perbandingan), perlindungan hukum dalam perspektif Stabilitas Sistem Keuangan di Indonesia, perlindungan hukum bagi Pimpinan Bank Sentral di beberapa Negara lain yaitu: Malaysia, Singapura dan India, serta kajian perlindungan hukum preventif dan represif bagi Pimpinan BI dalam melaksanakan tugas dan kewenangannya. Hasil penelitian dan pembahasan, dapat disimpulkan bahwa 1) Kebijakan BLBI dikategorikan sebagai perbuatan “Menyalahgunakan Kewenangan” dalam tipikor karena menurut pertimbangan MA-RI terdapat kelemahan pengawasan penggunaan BLBI, tidak didukung ketentuan yang valid dan menguntungkan bank-bank, yang dinilai telah memenuhi unsur Pasal 1 ayat (1) sub b UU No. 3/1971 (UU-PTPK). Kebijakan FPJP dan Bail-out Bank Century 2008 dikategorikan sebagai perbuatan “Melawan Hukum” dalam tipikor, karena menurut pertimbangan MA-RI persertujuan pemberian FPJP oleh ADG-BI Budi Mulya dilakukan dengan itikad tidak baik dan melanggar Pasal 45 UU-BI, sehingga memenuhi unsur Pasal 2 ayat (1) UU No. 31/1999 jo. UU No. 20/2001 (UU-PTPK). 2) Kebijakan BLBI 1997/1998 serta FPJP dan Bail-out Bank Century 2008 merupakan tanggung jawab jabatan dan pribadi. 3) Secara teoritis perlindungan hukum preventif telah diatur dalam UU-BI dan beberapa UU lainnya, yang dimaksudkan agar keputusan BI tetap independen, terhindar dari kriminalisasi dan terhindar dari tanggung jawab pribadi atas biaya kebijakan. Perlindungan hukum represif diberikan dalam bentuk bantuan hukum, serta pengujian penerapan Pasal 45 UU-BI di pengadilan. Sebagai saran bahwa kebijakan pemberian fasilitas LOLR dalam penanganan krisis sistem keuangan, agar BI konsisten berpedoman kepada UU-BI, UU-PPKSK, UU-AP, PBI-FPJP (PLJP), maupun peraturan perundang-undangan lainnya seperti UU-Perbankan, UU-OJK, UU-PTPK, KUHP dan KUHPerdata; serta sesuai Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik (AUPB).
English Abstract
In most parts of the world, the function of central bank responsible for financial system involves: a) controlling the financial circulation; b) keeping the stability of money market; c) supervise payment system; d) supervise banking systems; and (e) functioning as the Lender of Last Resort (LOLR), in which the bank gives the last loan to the banks encountering liquidity problems or the bank functions as the banker’s bank. Indonesia was hit by financial crisis in 1997/1998. To solve this problem, Bank Indonesia as a central bank and LOLR has set a policy to help with the liquidity support of Bank Indonesia (BLBI), affecting the cost spent on fiscal that has to be paid by the state as much as IDR 144.5 trillions. During the financial crisis occurring in 2008, Bank Indonesia has set a policy to provide short term loan facility (FPJP) and Bail-out to Bank Century accounting for IDR 6.7 trillions. The policy or discretion set in BLBI has triggered some legal problems in which three ex-management of Bank Indonesia Hendro Budijanto, Paul Sutopo, and Heru Soepraptomo were found to be involved in a corruption of BLBI and were pleaded guilty by Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia over the abuse of authority. Similarly, in terms of the policy of FPJP and Bail-out of Bank Century, one of a mamber of the Board of Governors Bank Indonesia called Budi Mulya, was also brought to court and pleaded guilty and proven to act against the law in the criminal corruption by Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Based on the issues mentioned above, there is a question raised regarding to what extent has the policy held by Management of Bank Indonesia over the settlement of financial crisis given advantages to the society? This condition also reflects the values of justice and legal certainty for Management of Bank Indonesia as an official responsible to make a policy, recalling that there is a provision of legal protection according to Article 45, Act of the Republic of Indonesia Number 23 of 1999 concerning Bank Indonesia As Amended By Act Number 6 of 2009 (BI Act). The provision regulates that Management of Bank Indonesia cannot be punished as he/she has performed his/her tasks based on the given authority and as long as all is done in good faith. There are several problems to be discussed in this research: 1) why was the policy set by the Management of Bank Indonesia regarding BLBI in 1997/1998 categorised into an act of abusing authority in criminal corruption, and why was the policy set by the Management of Bank Indonesia to overcome the financial crisis in 2008 in the form of FPJP and Bail-out of Bank Century categorized into an act that was against the law in Criminal Corruption? ; 2) What is the legal liability of the Management of Bank Indonesia in setting the policy regulating crisis of financial system?; 3) what theoretical based on the legal protection provided for the Management of Bank Indonesia in terms of encountering adjudicative process at court? This research employs normative or doctrinal legal research with the legal substance related to tasks and authorities of Bank Indonesia as the main object, especially related to setting the policy to tackle the financial system crisis and to provide legal protection for the Management of Bank Indonesia according to the Law in Indonesia. There are several theories used to answer problems mentioned above: 1) the theory of discretion; 2) the theory of legal liabilities; 3) the theory of legal protection; and 4) the theory of justice. The research and discussion were presented to observe the policy of state official in the perspective of Criminal Corruption, policy principle of BLBI 1997/1998 and policy principle of FPJP and Bail-out of Bank Century 2008, review of the Court Decision over the Criminal Corruption case of BLBI, and the policy regarding the provision of FPJP and Bail-out of Bank Century, and the legal responsibility of the Management of Bank Indonesia in terms of the policy to tackle the financial crisis. The research was then focused on the management of legal protection for the state official according to the law applied in Indonesia, the legal protection in the perspective of business decision by the board of directors of State-owned Enterprises (BUMN) according to Business Judgment Rule doctrine (as a comparative study), legal protection in the perspective of Financial System Stability in Indonesia, legal protection for the Management of Central Banks in several countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, and India, and study on preventive and repressive legal protection for the Management of Bank Indonesia in terms of executing tasks and authorities. The research result reveals that 1) the policy of BLBI is categorized into an act of abusing authorities based on criminal corruption because, according to the consideration made by Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia, the lack of oversight of the use of BLBI was found, in which it was not strengthened by the valid provision and no benefits were shared with banks. This has met the criterion in Article 1 Paragraph (1) sub b of Law on Corruption Eradication Number 3 of 1971 (the Criminal Act of Corruption Number 3 of 1971). The policy of FPJP and Bail-out of Bank Century 2008 is seen as an act that is against the law according to criminal corruption, as according to the consideration made by the Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia, the agreement of FPJP by Deputy Governor Budi Mulya was not done in good faith and it infringed Article 45 of the BI Act, so that it has met the element of Article 2 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act of Corruption Number 31 of 1999 jo. the Criminal Act of Corruption Number 20 of 2001. 2) The policy of BLBI 1997/1998 and FPJP and Bail-out of Bank Century 2008 is the official and personal liability. 3) Theoretically preventive protection is regulated in BI-Act and some other Laws, which is meant that the decision made by Bank Indonesia remains independent, free from criminality and personal responsibility regarding policy making. Repressive legal protection is provided in the form of legal aid and the examination of the implementation of Article 45 of the BI-Act in the Court. It is essential that, in terms of the policy to give the facility of LOLR to overcome the financial crisis, Bank Indonesia consistently refers to the BI Act (UU-BI), the Regulating Preventive and Handling Measures in Crisis Financial System Act (UU-PPKSK), the Government Administration Act (UU-AP), the Regulation of Bank Indonesia of FPJP (PBI-FPJP/PLJP), or other act’s such as the Banking Act (UU-Perbankan), the Financial Services Authority Act (UU-OJK), the Criminal Act of Corruption (UU-PTPK), the Criminal Code (KUHPidana), and the Civil Code (KUHPerdata); and it all should be according to the general principles of good governance (AUPB).
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doktor) |
|---|---|
| Identification Number: | DIS/346.082/KUS/p/2018/061901101 |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Perlindungan Hukum, Pimpinan Bank Indonesia, Penanganan Krisis Sistem Keuangan Di Indonesia,legal protection, management of Bank Indonesia, financial system crisis in Indonesia. |
| Subjects: | 300 Social sciences > 346 Private law > 346.08 Banks and insurance > 346.082 Banks |
| Divisions: | S2/S3 > Doktor Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum |
| Depositing User: | Sugeng Moelyono |
| Date Deposited: | 14 Oct 2022 02:26 |
| Last Modified: | 14 Oct 2022 02:26 |
| URI: | http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/195674 |
![[thumbnail of DIDIT KUSHERMAN.pdf]](http://repository.ub.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
DIDIT KUSHERMAN.pdf Download (4MB) |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |