RECONSTRUCTION OF BRIBERY SENTENCING REGULATIONS BASED ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL CERTAINTY VALUES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.6430Palabras clave:
Reconstruction, Bribery Sentencing, Corruption, Justice, Legal CertaintyResumen
This study aims to analyze the implementation of bribery sentencing regulations, identify inhibiting factors in their application, and formulate a reconstruction model of bribery sentencing regulations based on justice and legal certainty. The research employs a socio-legal research design with an empirical approach, focusing on examining the operation of law within society, particularly in the jurisdiction of Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Primary data were obtained through in-depth interviews with key informants, including corruption court judges, public prosecutors, investigators, legal practitioners, and legal academics. The sampling technique used purposive sampling, and the collected data were analyzed using descriptive qualitative methods through data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. The findings indicate that the current bribery sentencing regulations are ineffective due to normative ambiguity between bribery and gratification, procedural conflicts between sting operations (OTT) and reporting rights under Article 12C, and sentencing disparities caused by the wide range of criminal sanctions. These conditions are further influenced by weaknesses in legal substance, absence of nationally binding sentencing guidelines, and intervention of non-legal factors such as public opinion pressure and pragmatic considerations in asset recovery. As a solution, this study proposes the "Integrative-Progressive Sentencing System" model through three main pillars: normative reconstruction via a Triple-Layer Delict classification, procedural synchronization through a Pre-OTT Filter mechanism, and strengthening sanctions through institutionalized sentencing guidelines and implementation of "economic and political death" sanctions for perpetrators. This reconstruction aims to shift the sentencing paradigm from merely punitive physical sanctions toward substantive justice restoration that aligns with the welfare state concept. Such regulatory reconstruction is expected to strengthen the effectiveness of anti-corruption law enforcement and enhance public trust in the justice system.
Citas
Aditya, Z. F., & Hanim, L. (2022). Problems in proving the element of state economic loss in corruption crimes. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 4(2), 215–230.
Ansori, L. (2020). Reformulation of the Indonesian criminal justice system: A study of restorative justice ideas. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 9(1), 113–130.
Arifin, R., et al. (2023). A discourse of justice and legal certainty in stolen assets recovery in Indonesia: Radbruch’s formula. Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Konstitusi, 6(2), 159–181.
Azhar, A. K. W. (2021). Collaborative governance in the national anti-corruption strategy (Stranas-PK). Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi.
Chazawi, A. (2017). Corruption criminal law in Indonesia (Revised ed.). Rajagrafindo Persada.
Hart, H. L. A. (2012). The concept of law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hiariej, E. O. S. (2016). Principles of criminal law (Revised ed.). Cahaya Atma Pustaka.
Indriati, T., Rizkiah, N., & Mazhar, M. N. M. (2025). Recodification of corruption crime provisions in the national criminal code. Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi, 10(2), 239–248.
Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001.
Mappaselleng, N. F. (2018). Special criminal procedure law in the Indonesian criminal justice system. CV. Social Politic Genius (SOPGE).
Moeljatno. (2015). Principles of criminal law (Revised ed.). Rineka Cipta.
Rahardjo, S. (2017). Progressive law: A synthesis of Indonesian law. Genta Publishing.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Harvard University Press.
Sembiring, I. S., & Pujiyono, P. (2021). Bribery in the private sector as a corruption offense policy. Al-Risalah Jurnal Ilmu Syariah dan Hukum, 21(1), 126–138.
Soekanto, S. (2015). Factors influencing law enforcement. PT RajaGrafindo Persada.
Thalib, H. (2019). Judicial power and judicial institutions in Indonesia. Pustaka Refleksi.
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
Umam, A. K., & Head, B. (2020). Testing the limits of public integrity: The impact of vested interests and countervailing forces on Indonesia’s KPK. Asian Politics & Policy.
United Nations. (2003). United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).
Wibisana, A. G., & Marbun, A. N. (2018). Corporate criminal liability in Indonesian anti-corruption law. Asian Journal of Law & Economics.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
I (we) submit this article which is original and unpublished, of my (our) own authorship, to the evaluation of the Veredas do Direito Journal, and agree that the related copyrights will become exclusive property of the Journal, being prohibited any partial or total copy in any other part or other printed or online communication vehicle dissociated from the Veredas do Direito Journal, without the necessary and prior authorization that should be requested in writing to Editor in Chief. I (we) also declare that there is no conflict of interest between the articles theme, the author (s) and enterprises, institutions or individuals.
I (we) recognize that the Veredas do Direito Journal is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0


