Law Enforcement in Handling Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Crimes Committed by Advocates Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number: 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009

Rama Paramaswara, Eva Achjani Zulfa, Surya Nita

Abstract


This study aims to examine law enforcement's response to obstruction of justice and corruption offences committed by advocates using case studies from the Supreme Court Verdict No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009. The study's formulation of the problem is based on the Supreme Court Decision 684 K / Pid.Sus / 2009, and the Position of the Right to Immunity Advocates in Cases of Corruption. This is a normative juridical form of research. The results revealed that while the Position of Advocate possesses protection from prosecution in cases of corruption, this does not mean they are immune from the law. Equal protection under the law requires that equality before the law be respected and maintained as a common standard in law enforcement. Criminal liability for those who obstruct justice in corruption cases is 3 (three) years in prison and a fine of Rp. 150.000.000, if the defendant's activities are found to meet the elements of criminal acts as defined in Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 jo. Law No. 20 of 2001. It can be speculated that the concept of equality before the law must continue to be implemented because it signifies equality against everyone, whether privileged or impoverished, authorities or regular citizens. In a matter of fact, advocates do not receive legal immunity. In this instance, the advocate should also maintain the Criminal Justice System's, such as a precaution or even obstruct the legal process by not taking steps.


Keywords


Obstruction of Justice; Corruption Crime; Advocate; Supreme Court Decision

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agustina, S. (2015). Obstruction of justice: tindak pidana menghalangi proses hukum dalam upaya pemberantasan korupsi. Themis Books.

Asshiddiqie, J. (2015). Upaya Perancangan Undang-undang Tentang Larangan Merendahkan Martabat Pengadilan (Contempt of Court). Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 4(2), 199–222.

Eddy, O. S. H. (2016). Prinsip-prinsip hukum pidana. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka.

Harahap, M. (2013). Tinjauan Psikologi Kriminal Terhadap Pemberatan Hukuman Dalam Tindak Pidana Pencurian (Studi Kasus Pengadilan Negeri Medan).

Hikmawati, P. (2017). Kendala Penerapan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi (The Obstacles Of Implementing The Criminal Liability Of The Corporation As A Criminal Of Corruption). Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum untuk Keadilan dan Kesejahteraan, 8(1), 131–150.

Kaligis, O. C., & SH, M. H. (2015). Bila Advokat Menjadi Terdakwa. In Jakarta: Yarsif Watampone. Penerbit Alumni.

Mamengko, R. S. (2016). Product Liability Dan Profesional Liability Di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3(9), 1–10.

Mote, Y. (2012). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Oleh Advokat Yang Merintangi Proses Penydikan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. JURNAL KERTHA WICAKSANA, 1(1).

Padil, P. (2016). Karakteristik Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan, 4(1), 1–6.

Raharjo, A., & Sunarnyo, S. (2014). Penilaian Profesionalisme Advokat dalam Penegakan Hukum melalui Pengukuran Indikator Kinerja Etisnya. Jurnal Media Hukum, 21(2), 16.

Saepudin, A. (2016). Kedudukan dan fungsi Advokat Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v9i4.3768

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.