ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM HAKIM DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

(STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI KUPANG NOMOR 11/PID-SUS TPK/2024/PN KPG JO PUTUSAN PENGADILAN TINGGI KUPANG 22/PID.SUS-TPK/2024/PT KPG)

Abstract

Judicial decisions represent a concrete manifestation of law enforcement and a reflection of substantive justice within the criminal justice system. In corruption cases, judges are required to proportionally consider legal elements, evidence, and the objectives of sentencing, although in practice there is often a gap between legal expectations (das sollen) and legal reality (das sein). This study examines the judicial reasoning in the corruption case of Yudi Liman Hege through the District Court of Kupang Decision No. 11/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PN Kpg, which declared the defendant guilty, and the High Court of Kupang Decision No. 22/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PT Kpg, which acquitted him. The analysis employs theories of justice, Lawrence M. Friedman’s legal system theory, as well as absolute, relative, and combined sentencing theories to evaluate the balance between retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The research method used is normative juridical with a descriptive-analytical specification, based on secondary data from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, analyzed qualitatively through inductive reasoning. The findings are expected to contribute theoretically to legal scholarship and provide practical benefits for law enforcement, academia, and society in ensuring fair and responsive legal certainty in corruption cases. The results reveal that the first-instance court applied a strict liability approach, interpreting administrative negligence as an abuse of authority fulfilling the elements of Article 3 of the Anti Corruption Law, even without concrete proof of criminal intent. Conversely, the appellate court prioritized the principle of due process of law, requiring proof of causal involvement and intent, thus rendering the acquittal legally valid. A comparative analysis of the two decisions highlights differing orientations of justice: the first-instance court emphasized responsive justice, while the appellate court upheld substantive justice. This study recommends the establishment of clear judicial guidelines distinguishing administrative violations from corruption crimes, the adoption of an intent-based evidentiary approach in law enforcement, and a revision of Article 3 of the Anti Corruption Law to avoid interpretative bias regarding the limits of abuse of authority.