| dc.description.abstract | Corruption in the procurement of goods and services has occurred
numerously in Indonesia. Obviously, according to criminal law, the perpetrators
of corruption in the procurement of goods and services must be held accountable
for their actions through imposing criminal sanctions by the Panel of Judges,
based on the court ruling that has permanent and definite legal force. There is a
conspicuous disparity in sentencing on the legal facts in imposing criminal
sanctions (sentencing) towards perpetrators of corruption in the procurement of
goods and services in Indonesia.
This research discusses the conspicuous criminal disparities in the
sentencing of suspected perpetrators of corruption in the procurement of goods
and services. In regard to it, this research is focused on assessing and analyzing
the correlation between judicial independence and the occurrence of conspicuous
sentencing disparity in corruption cases in the procurement of goods and services,
the causing factors of sentencing disparity in corruption cases in the procurement
of goods and services, and also regarding efforts to minimize the occurrence of
sentencing disparity of corruption cases in the procurement of goods and services.
The theory used as an analytical tool is the Theory of Penalty proposed by
Pallegrino Rossi, the Theory of Justice proposed by Aristotle, and the Theories of
Proportionality proposed by Herbert L. Packer.
This is prescriptive analysis research using a normative method which
refers to legal norms contained in laws and regulations and court rulings. The
research uses the case approach and the law approach methods. The data are
analyzed qualitatively.
The research results conclude that there is a close judicial correlation
between judicial independence and the occurrence of conspicuous sentencing
disparity in corruption cases in the procurement of goods and services. The
judicial independence, based on the provisions of Article 24 paragraph (1) of the
1945 Constitution, Article 1 paragraph (1), and Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law
Number 48 of 2009, provides legal legality in the form of freedoms for Judges that
have the potential to create conspicuous sentencing disparity in the case of
procurement of goods and services. This is also added by the unknown
application of precedent (as in Common Law) in the judiciary in Indonesia, as
well as the element of the Judge's belief based on the provisions of Article 183 of
the Criminal Code and Article 6 paragraph (20) of Law Number 48 of 2009. The causing factors of the occurrence of sentencing disparity in the corruption case in
the procurement of goods and services include the different philosophies of
sentencing adopted by the Judges in proving the defendant's guilt, the presence of
elements of the Judge's belief based on the provisions of Article 183 of the
Criminal Code and Article 6 paragraph (2) of Law Number 48 of 2009, the
court's authority is too broad and without limitation based on the provisions of
Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 1 number (1) and
Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009, poor ability of some Judges in
interpreting the law into concrete situations, abuse of the exercise of the Judge’s
discretion, and poor morality of some Judges. The efforts to minimize the
occurrence of sentencing disparity of corruption cases in the procurement of
goods and services is by having the Supreme Court make a Supreme Court
Regulation (Perma) which regulates the numerical sentencing guidelines for all
types of corruption (as stipulated in Law Number 20 of 2001), improving
integrity, legal understanding, and interpretation of Judges carried out through
coaching activities, training, and education on the theme of corruption, as well as
improving the recruitment system for Judges (who should be recruited by legal
doctoral) that is carried out without any indication of KKN (Corruption,
Collusion, Nepotism). | en_US |
