Legal Literacy - This article discusses the systematic and historical methods of legal interpretation in judges' decisions in corruption cases, along with their explanations..

Judges must not reject cases on the grounds that there is no law governing a concrete event registered with the court. To that end, the law requires judges to explore and discover the law that lives in society. Interpretation and construction of law are methods used by judges in applying and finding the law. Interpretation is a method to understand the meaning contained in legal texts and is used in resolving cases or making decisions on matters faced concretely.

Juridically and philosophically, judges have the authority to interpret the law so that the decisions they make are in accordance with the law and the sense of justice of the community. This applies to all judges in all judicial environments and in the scope of first instance, appellate and cassation courts.

Criminal law applies the principle of legality, which is the principle that determines that no act is prohibited and threatened with criminal sanctions if it is not determined in advance in a law. Criminal procedure law is also a procedural law that regulates how material criminal law is implemented and must be strictly enforced. Thus, the interpretations that can be used to interpret articles are very limited to grammatical and systematic interpretations, or at most historically and teleologically from the intended purpose.

Brief Description of the Supreme Court Decision Number 610 K/Pid.Sus/2020

The author examines Supreme Court Decision Number 610 K/Pid.Sus/2020, namely the corruption case jointly involving Nasir L., S.Sos. The decision is a cassation decision that was rejected by the judge with improvements related to the previous decision, namely the Corruption Crime Court Decision at the Makassar High Court Number 24/PID SUS TPK/2019/PT.MKS, dated September 12, 2019, which upheld the Corruption Crime Court Decision at the Makassar District Court Number 20/PID.SUS/TPK/2019/PN Mks, dated July 16, 2019. The improvement concerned the length of the sentence imposed and the replacement money charged to the Defendant Nasir, L. S.Sos, considering that the state financial loss caused by the Defendant's actions was quite significant, as well as for the consistency of the decision and the unity of legal opinion in the practice of eradicating corruption.

The case in Supreme Court Decision Number 610 K/Pid.Sus/2020 is related to systematic and historical interpretation. Conceptually, the interpretation made by the judge in the decision is correct according to the method of legal interpretation and is in accordance with legal procedural. The interpretation made by the judge in the decision is to interpret several provisions of the law, namely the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Corruption Law).

Systematic Legal Interpretation in Article 244 and Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code

In the understanding from the point of view of justice, it requires that court decisions must be based on the values of justice. In relation to this, based on the legal considerations contained in the cassation decisions of the Nasir L., S.Sos case, the author analyzes the problem of the acceptance of the cassation appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor from several theoretical studies, namely: first the legal interpretation by the Supreme Court of the provisions of the law regarding the submission of cassation is the interpretation of Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the basis for submitting cassation.

Second, related to systematic interpretation, namely interpretation according to the system that exists in the legal formulation itself. Systematic legal interpretation can also occur if one legal text with another legal text, which both regulate the same thing, are correlated and compared with each other. According to Visser’t Hoft, a legal system that focuses on codification certainly refers to the system of laws or books of laws, in this case the Criminal Procedure Code, in which the provisions contained therein are interconnected and at the same time this interconnectedness is able to determine a meaning.

Referring to Decision Number 610 K/Pid.Sus/2020, the cassation application along with the reasons have been submitted within the time limit and in the manner according to the law, namely Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, so the cassation application of the Public Prosecutor can be formally accepted.

Systematic Legal Interpretation based on Article 253 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code

One of the reasons (considerations) of the judges at the cassation level for rejecting the cassation appeal with improvements is related to the authority of Judex Juris possessed by the Supreme Court to adjudicate cases. The reason for cassation submitted by the Public Prosecutor only describes the legal facts of the trial in his cassation memorandum. The Public Prosecutor's objection cannot be justified because it is a difference in interpretation of the legal facts of the trial which is an assessment of the results of evidence which is the basis of the authority of Judex Facti in this case it is not the authority of the Supreme Court Justice.

The Supreme Court Justice as a cassation judge certainly does not reconcile the facts, but only assesses whether it is Judex Facti right or wrong in upholding the law. Article 253 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the examination at the cassation level is carried out by the Supreme Court at the request of the Public Prosecutor to determine:

  1. whether it is true that a legal regulation is not applied or is not applied as it should be;
  2. whether it is true that the way of judging is not carried out according to the provisions of the law; and
  3. whether it is true that the court has exceeded its authority.

Systematic legal interpretation is carried out on Article 253 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court Justice has the authority Judex Juris, which in the corruption case together with Nasir L., S.Sos. the judge justified the previous decisions, namely the Corruption Crime Court Decision at the Makassar High Court Number 24/PID SUS TPK/2019/PT.MKS, dated September 12, 2019 which upheld the Corruption Crime Court Decision at the Makassar District Court Number 20/PID.SUS/TPK/2019/PN Mks, dated July 16, 2019.

The judge is of the opinion that the reason for cassation from the Public Prosecutor cannot be justified, the decision Judex Facti which states that the Defendant is proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing the crime of “Corruption jointly”, violating Article 3 juncto Article 18 of the Law on Eradication of Corruption juncto Article 55 Paragraph (1) sub-1 of the Criminal Code juncto Article 64 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, as stated in the subsidiary indictment of the Public Prosecutor, is a decision that does not incorrectly apply the law and is in accordance with applicable procedural law and does not exceed its authority.

Systematic Legal Interpretation in Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Then the systematic legal interpretation in the decision a quo also relates to Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code which explains that “If the Supreme Court examines a cassation application because it has fulfilled the provisions as referred to in Article 245, Article 246, and Article 247 regarding the law, the Supreme Court can decide to reject or grant the cassation application”. The cassation application submitted by the Public Prosecutor in the decision has fulfilled the provisions as referred to in Article 245, Article 246, and Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the mechanism and time limit for submitting a cassation application. The Supreme Justice in the decision stated that he rejected the Cassation Application with improvements because of the reasons that have been explained previously.

In the Verdict a quo, the judge also made a legal interpretation of the history of law, namely an interpretation by determining the meaning of a formulation of legal norms by taking into account the history of the content of the norm or legal understanding by seeking links with the opinions of writers, or the socio-cultural context of the past. Referring to the Verdict Judex Factie previously (District Court Decision and High Court Decision), the Judge is of the opinion that it is still necessary to improve the length of the sentence imposed and the replacement money charged to the Defendant, considering that the state financial losses caused by the Defendant's actions are quite significant, as well as for consistency of decisions and unity of legal opinion in the practice of eradicating corruption.

In addition, the money corrupted by the Defendant involving other people or corporations is a loss to state finances. In the cassation decision, the Defendant was sentenced to 2 (two) years in prison and a fine of Rp. 50,000,000.00 (fifty million rupiah) with the provision that if the fine is not paid, it will be replaced with imprisonment for 3 (three) months and an additional penalty in the form of replacement money of Rp. 170,059,987.00 (one hundred and seventy million fifty nine thousand nine hundred and eighty seven rupiah).

Reference

  • Amdani, Yusi. “Implications of Interpretation of Laws by Pre-Trial Judges in Corruption Cases.” Mimbar Hukum - Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University 27, no. 3 (February 10, 2016): 459.
  • Jati, Bintang Indara, Edwin Nindya Perdana, and Novi Kusumawati. “Juridical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Consideration of Accepting the Submission of a Criminal Case Review by the Prosecutor.” Jurnal Verstek 3, no. 1 (2015).
  • Khalid, Afif. “Legal Interpretation by Judges in the Judicial System in Indonesia.” Al-’Adl VI, no. 11 (2014): 28.
  • Larasati, Gita. “Analysis of Legal Considerations by Judges in Pre-Trial Decisions Regarding the Determination of Suspect Status.” Faculty of Sharia and Law, Alauddin State Islamic University Makassar, 2017.