Analisis Penerapan Perma No 1 Tahun 2020 Untuk Mengatasi Disparitas Putusan dalam Penjatuhan Pidana Bagi Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang Merugikan Keuangan Negara

Abstract

The problem of corruption in Indonesia is still a serious threat that has not been resolved, not only harming the country's finances but also having an impact on political and social problems. One of the main factors that cause high rates of corruption is that decisions often show significant disparities and often without strong consideration. In response to this criticism, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia issued Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 1 of 2020 concerning Criminal Guidelines Article 2 and Article 3 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption to address the disparity in criminalization. This research is a normative juridical research conducted by researching through secondary data consisting of primary legal materials such as laws and regulations and also using secondary legal materials such as legal literature related to the formulation of problems in this study. To analyze this research, two approaches were used, namely the statutory approach and the case approach. The data collection method is carried out using a literature study procedure by conducting a review of written information from various sources related to the implementation of PERMA No. 1 of 2020 in imposing penalties for perpetrators of corruption crimes that harm the state's finances. The results of the study show that PERMA No. 1 of 2020 is present as a flexible criminal guideline where there is a criminal range as a reference. In its application, judges must go through six stages, namely determining the category of state financial losses, the level of error, impact, and profit, choosing the range of criminal imposition, considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, imposing a penalty, and considering other provisions related to criminal imposition. Analysis of the rulings of corruption cases shows that the application of PERMA can reduce the disparity of verdicts, although there are still differences in the verdicts handed down, but still within the range regulated by PERMA and accompanied by clear considerations.