Analisis Hukum Tentang Disparitas Pidana Dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Proyek Pengerjaan Jalan (Pada Kasus Putusan Nomor 54/Pid.Sus/Tipikor/2013/PN.PBR)
ABSTRACT: Corruption is one
part of a special criminal law. Corruption is considered detrimental to the social
and economic rights of Indonesian society. The seriousness of the government in
tacklingcorruption is the establishment of Law No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction
with Law No. 20 Year2001 on Corruption Eradication. The purpose of this thesis,
namely; First, to determine theprocess of proving corruption in road
construction projects abuse of authority in case No. 54/Pid.Sus/Corruption/2013/PN.PBR,
Second, To know the legal consideration by the judge in the case
No.54/Pid.Sus/Corruption/2013/PN.PBR. This type of research can be classified
into types of normative research, because in this studythe authors conducted a
study and discussion or analysis in depth against Corruption Courtdecision
No.54/Pid.Sus/Corruption/2013/PN.PBR, sources of data, which is used , primary
data, secondary data, and the data tertiary data collection techniques in this
study using literaturestudies or studies documentary. From the research, there
are two fundamental problems that can be inferred. First, That the proof in
case number 54 / Pid.Sus / Corruption / 2013 / PN.PBR is using negative
verification system (negatief
etterlijk), where the burden of proof remains with the Prosecution, while the defendant
merely presenting defense witnesses only (adecharge). Secondly, That the legal reasoning
by judges in adjudicating the case number 54 / Pid.Sus / Corruption / 2013 /
PN.PBR is not true, where the judge only consider the guilt of the accused of
the charges of the subsidiarythat Article 3 of Law No. 31 Year 1999 jo Law Law
No. 20 of 2001 without first considering indetail where the location of the
non-fulfillment element of Article 2 of Law No. 31 of 1999 inconjunction with
Law No. 20 of 2001. Because if Article 2 is not proven then automatically Article
3 also should not be proven according to law because both elements are almost
the samearticle that is committed an unlawful act. Suggestions author, First,
it is suggested to the Public Prosecutor and the judge who tried the case
number 54/Pid.Sus/ Corruption/2013/PN.PBR that in the proof should be done with
a combination of negative evidence of proof, so that the handling of this case
actually achieve sense of justice. Second, it is suggested to the judge who
tried thecase number 54 / Pid.Sus / Corruption / 2013 / PN.PBR to first
consider which elements are not met from the Article 2 of Law No. 31 of 1999 in
conjunction with Law Number 20 Year 2001, because otherwise they will give the
impression of judges chose a lesser sentence with direct consideration of
Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law No. 20 of 2001.
Penulis: Akfini Aditias
Kode Jurnal: jphukumdd151183
