Electronic Theses and Dissertation

KONSEPSI PIDANA MATI TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI PADA SAAT NEGARA DALAM KEADAAN TERTENTU

Darmawi Yusuf ;, Adwani ; Muazzin ; M. Gaussyah ;

ABSTRAK

Keterbatasan Pasal 2 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Tipikor dan Pasal 27 ayat (2) dan (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2020 tentang Kebijakan Keuangan Negara dalam Penanganan COVID-19 menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum dan cenderung mengabaikan asas persamaan di hadapan hukum (equality before the law). Pasal 2 ayat (2) hanya mengatur pidana mati bagi koruptor dalam “keadaan tertentu” yang diartikan sempit, tidak mencakup bencana non-alam seperti pandemi atau krisis ekonomi. Persoalan lainnya yaitu kelemahan Pasal 27 ayat (2) dan (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2020 yang memberi kekebalan hukum bagi pejabat atas dasar itikad baik tanpa kriteria yang jelas. Inkonsistensi ini melemahkan asas keadilan dan membuka peluang impunitas bagi pelaku korupsi dalam situasi darurat.
Penelitian bertujuan untuk menganalisis pengaturan pidana terhadap koruptor yang melakukan korupsi di saat negara dalam keadaan tertentu, bagaimana konsepsi pidana mati bagi koruptor yang melakukan korupsi pada saat negara dalam keadaan tertentu dan pidana mati bagi koruptor yang melakukan korupsi pada saat negara dalam keaadaan tertentu telah memberikan keadilan dan kepastian hukum.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif, pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui studi keperpustakaan untuk mendapatkan data sekunder dengan cara mengkaji peraturan perundang-undangan, buku-buku, jurnal, media internet serta karya-karya ilmiah lainnya yang terkait. Pendekatan yang dilakukan adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan, sejarah, konseptual dan pendekatan perbandingan. Analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif.
Pengaturan pidana mati bagi koruptor dalam Pasal 2 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Tipikor masih lemah karena frasa “keadaan tertentu” tidak dijelaskan secara tegas dan hanya mencakup bencana alam. Ketidakjelasan ini menimbulkan multitafsir dan membuka ruang interpretasi subjektif bagi penegak hukum. Akibatnya, tujuan pemberatan hukuman untuk melindungi kepentingan publik tidak tercapai secara optimal. Konsepsi pidana mati seharusnya menjadi langkah luar biasa terhadap kejahatan luar biasa seperti korupsi. Namun, keberadaan Undang-Undang Kebijakan Keuangan Negara dalam Penanganan COVID-19 justru membuka peluang impunitas dengan dalih keadaan darurat. Hal ini tidak sejalan dengan prinsip keadilan, kemanfaatan, dan kepastian hukum. Ketentuan pidana mati bagi koruptor belum memberikan keadilan dan kepastian hukum karena norma “keadaan tertentu” masih sempit dan multitafsir. Pasal 27 Undang-Undang Kebijakan Keuangan Negara juga memperkuat ketimpangan hukum dengan memberikan perlindungan atas dasar itikad baik tanpa batasan yang jelas. Kondisi ini berpotensi melemahkan efektivitas pemberantasan korupsi di masa krisis.
Disarankan kepada Pemerintah dan DPR perlu merevisi Undang-Undang Tipikor dan Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2020 dengan menghapus celah impunitas dan memastikan pejabat tetap dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana dan perdata. Disarankan kepada Mahkamah Agung dan aparat penegak hukum harus menegaskan bahwa korupsi dalam keadaan tertentu seperti pandemi merupakan pemberat hukuman, termasuk pidana mati sesuai Pasal 2 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Tipikor. Disarankan kepada Pemerintah harus menetapkan pengawasan ketat dan transparan terhadap anggaran darurat, melibatkan pengawas internal, eksternal, dan partisipasi publik melalui akses data yang terbuka.

Kata Kunci : Konsepsi, Koruptor, Pidana Mati.

THE CONCEPTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR PERPETRATORS OF CORRUPTION CRIMINAL ACTS WHEN THE STATE IS IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS Darmawi Yusuf *, Adwani **, Muazzin***, M. Gaussyah****, ABSTRACT The limitation of Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law (Law No. 31 of 1999 as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001) and Article 27 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 2 of 2020 concerning the State Financial Policy and Financial System Stability for Handling COVID-19 creates legal uncertainty and tends to undermine the principle of equality before the law. Article 2 paragraph (2) only stipulates the death penalty for corruptors in a “certain situation,” narrowly interpreted to include only natural disasters, excluding non-natural disasters such as pandemics or economic crises. Another issue arises from Article 27 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 2 of 2020, which grants legal immunity to officials acting in “good faith” without clearly defined criteria. This inconsistency weakens the principle of justice and opens the door to impunity for corrupt acts committed during emergency situations. This study aims to analyze: (1) the regulation of criminal sanctions for corruptors who commit corruption during a state of emergency, (2) the conception of the death penalty for corruptors under such conditions, and (3) whether the death penalty in this context provides justice and legal certainty. The research employs a normative juridical method, with data collected through library research to obtain secondary materials by reviewing legislation, legal books, academic journals, online sources, and other relevant scholarly works. The approaches used include the statutory approach, historical approach, conceptual approach, and comparative approach. Data were analyzed qualitatively. The regulation of the death penalty under Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law remains weak because the term “certain situation” is not explicitly defined and is limited to natural disasters. This ambiguity leads to multiple interpretations and allows for subjective discretion by law enforcement authorities. Consequently, the objective of imposing harsher punishment to protect the public interest cannot be fully achieved. The conception of the death penalty should be understood as an extraordinary measure against extraordinary crimes such as corruption. However, the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2020 on State Financial Policy in Handling COVID-19 instead creates a potential for impunity under the pretext of emergency conditions. This situation contradicts the principles of justice, expediency, and legal certainty. The provision of the death penalty for corruptors has not provided justice and certainty because the term “certain situation” remains narrowly defined and open to interpretation. Moreover It is therefore recommended that the Government and the House of Representatives (DPR) revise both the Anti-Corruption Law and Law No. 2 of 2020 to eliminate legal loopholes that may result in impunity, ensuring that public officials remain subject to both criminal and civil liability. The Supreme Court and law enforcement agencies should affirm that corruption committed during emergencies—such as pandemics—constitutes an aggravating circumstance warranting the imposition of the death penalty as provided in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law. Furthermore, the Government must enforce strict and transparent oversight of emergency funds, involving internal and external supervisory institutions as well as public participation through open access to financial data. Keywords: Corruption, Capital Punishment, Emergency Situations, Legal Certainty.