Disparitas Putusan Hakim Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi

Saputra, Fajar Akbar Aji and Prof. Masruchin Ruba’i, S.H., M.S and Milda Istiqomah, S.H., MTCP, Ph.D (2023) Disparitas Putusan Hakim Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Sarjana thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.

Abstract

Putusan Nomor 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby dan Putusan Nomor 43/Pid.SusTPK/2021/PN.Sby penulis angkat menjadi objek penelitan dengan latar belakang kedua putusan tersebut adalah tindak pidana yang sama, dan memiliki kerugian yang senjang yaitu Terdakwa Terdakwa Ir.Tadjuddin Nur Kadir, Ms. dengan kerugian negara Rp. 860.000.000,00 dengan pidana pidana penjara 1 tahun dan denda Rp. 50.000.000,00 sedangkan Terdakwa Tunut Suprianto kerugian negara Rp. 383.470.000,00 justru dipidana penjara 2 tahun dan 3 bulan dan denda RP. 50.000.000,00 dan membayar uang pengganti sebesar sebesar Rp 383.470.000,00, sehingga terlihat jelas kedua putusan tersebut memiliki disparitas (kesenjangan) pidana yang dijatuhkan. Berdasarkan hal tersebut di atas, penulis mengangkat rumusan masalah: (1) Apa pertimbangan hakim dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya Nomor 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby dan Nomor 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN.Sby? (2) Apa penyebab disparitas dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya Nomor 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby dan Putusan Nomor 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN.Sby? Kemudian penulisan skripsi ini menggunakan metode normatif dengan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier yang diperoleh penulis akan dianalisis dengan menggunakan teknik analisis interpretasi sistematis, interpretasi gramatikal, dan interpretasi teleologis atau sosiologis. Dari hasil penelitian dengan metode di atas, penulis memperoleh jawaban atas permasalahan yang ada bahwa penyebab disparitasnya adalah sistem hukum eropa kontinental yang cenderung terjadi disparitas putusan daripada sistem hukum anglo saxon, yang kedua tidak diaturnya jenis teori pemidanaan secara tegas dalam KUHP, dalam Putusan Nomor 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby hakim tampaknya menggunakan teori pemidanaan berdasarkan falsafah Pancasila dan teori tujuan relatif, lebih tepatnya teori perbaikan (pendidikan, verbeterings theorie). Sedangkan dalam Putusan Nomor 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN.Sby tampaknya tidak menggunakan teori pemidanaan berdasarkan falsafah Pancasila, namun hanya menggunakan teori tujuan relatif, lebih tepatnya teori perbaikan (pendidikan, verbeterings theorie). Yang ketiga Pertimbangan hakim. Pertama, petimbangan hakim dalam putusan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya Nomor 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby Terdakwa tidak dikenakannya Pasal 18 UU PTPK yang mengatur pidana tambahan, sedangkan dalam Putusan Nomor 43/Pid.SusTPK/2021/PN.Sby dikenakan Pasal 18 Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi berupa pidana uang pengganti. Kedua, adanya perbedaan pertimbangan non yuridis pada Hal meringankan yang mana dalam Putusan Nomor 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby ada hal meringankan berupa berupa Terdakwa sering sakitsakitan dan sudah tua, sedangkan pertimbangan tersebut tidak ada dalam Putusan Nomor 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN.Sby.

English Abstract

Decision Number 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby and Decision Number 43/Pid.SusTPK/2021/PN.Sby the authors adopted as the object of research the background of the two decisions being the same crime, and having unequal losses, namely the Defendant Ir.Tadjuddin Nur Kadir, Ms. with state losses of Rp. 860,000,000.00 with imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rp. 50,000,000.00 while the Defendant Prosecutor Suprianto caused a state loss of Rp. 383,470,000.00 were instead sentenced to 2 years and 3 months in prison and a fine of RP. 50,000,000.00 and paid compensation in the amount of Rp. 383,470,000.00, so it is clear that the two decisions have a disparity (gap) in the sentences handed down. Based on the above, the author raises the problem formulation: (1) What are the judges' considerations in the Surabaya District Court Decision Number 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby and Number 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN. Sby? (2) What is the cause of the disparity in the Surabaya District Court Decision Number 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby and Decision Number 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN.Sby? Then the writing of this thesis uses the normative method with the statutory approach (statute approach) and case approach (case approach). Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials obtained by the author will be analyzed using the analytical techniques of systematic interpretation, grammatical interpretation, and teleological or sociological interpretation. From the results of the research using the method above, the authors obtained answers to the existing problems that the cause of the disparity was the continental European legal system which tended to have disparities in decisions than the Anglo-Saxon legal system, secondly, the type of sentencing theory was not strictly regulated in the Criminal Code, in Decision Number 72 /Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby the judge seems to use the theory of punishment based on the Pancasila philosophy and the theory of relative goals, more precisely the theory of improvement (education, verbeterings theory). Whereas in Decision Number 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN.Sby it seems that it does not use the theory of sentencing based on the Pancasila philosophy, but only uses the theory of relative goals, more precisely the theory of improvement (education, verbeterings theory). The third is the judge's consideration. First, the consideration of the judge in the decision of the Surabaya District Court Decision Number 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby The Defendant did not apply Article 18 of the PTPK Law which regulates additional punishment, while in Decision Number 43/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/ PN.Sby is subject to Article 18 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes in the form of monetary compensation. Second, there are differences in non-juridical considerations in mitigating matters in Decision Number 72/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.Sby there are mitigating factors in the form of the Defendant being often sick and old, while these considerations are not in Decision Number 43/Pid.SusTPK/2021/PN.Sby.

Item Type:	Thesis (Sarjana)
Identification Number:	052301
Divisions:	Fakultas Hukum > Ilmu Hukum
Depositing User:	Samuri
Date Deposited:	19 Jan 2024 02:03
Last Modified:	19 Jan 2024 02:03
URI:	http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/212278

Text (DALAM MASA EMBARGO) Fajar Akbar Aji Saputra.pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 31 December 2025. Download (1MB)

Actions (login required)

View Item