The Usefulness of the Overmacht (Coercion) in Accountability for Corruption Crimes Committed by Order of Position in Indonesia

Authors

  • Rudy Universitas Muhammadiyah Kendari
  • Ariai Universitas Muhammadiyah Kendari
  • Abdul Jabar Rahim Universitas Muhammadiyah Kendari

Keywords:

Overmacht, Criminal Liability, Position Orders, Corruption, Substantive Justice

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the usefulness of the concept of overmacht (coercion) in the context of accountability for corruption crimes committed based on official orders. In law enforcement practice, there is often an excuse from corrupt perpetrators that their actions were carried out due to pressure from their positions or orders from superiors. This raises conceptual questions about the limits of individual responsibility and the existence of excuses for forgiveness in Indonesian criminal law. This research uses normative legal research methods with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach and is analyzed using a systematic and teleological interpretation of the provisions of Article 48 and Article 51 of the Criminal Code. The analysis is also associated with the principle of criminal accountability and the principle of substantive justice. The results of the study show that overmacht can only be used as a basis for eliminating wrongdoing if the pressure of position eliminates the freedom of the perpetrator's will. Bureaucratic pressure or institutional loyalty alone is not enough to justify corrupt acts. Thus, the application of overmacht in corruption cases must be carefully assessed by judges based on the context and intensity of office pressure. This study recommends the need to reformulate legal norms in the Corruption Law and strengthen education on office ethics, so that the concept of overmacht is not abused but still functions as an instrument of substantive justice in the Indonesian criminal law system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Achmad, M. F. Y. (2010). Dualism of Normative Legal Research and Empirical Legal Research. In Student Library.

Daryl John Rasuh. (2016). Kajian Hukum Keadaan Memaksa (Force Majeure) Menurut Pasal 1244 Dan Pasal 1245 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Lex Privatum, 4(2), 173–180.

Diah Gustiniati Maulani. (2013). Analisis Pertanggungjawaban Pidana dan Dasar Pemidanaan TerhadapPelaku Tindak Pidana Penodaan Agama Di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 7(1), 1–12.

Hasbullah, H. (2017). Perintah Atasan atau Jabatan (Ambtelijk Bevel) sebagai Penyebab Korupsi di Lingkungan Birokrasi. Jurnal Muara Ilmu Sosial, Humaniora, Dan Seni, 1(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.24912/jmishumsen.v1i1.338

Heindra A. Sondakh. (2014). Perintah Jabatan Dan Perintah Jabatan Tanpa Wewenang Dalam Pasal 51 Kuh Pidana. Lex Crimen, 8(4), 6.

Lendo, D. J. A. (2018). Alasan Pembenar Sesuai Dengan Pasal 49 Ayat (1) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Lex Crimen, 7(9), 1689–1699.

Mahmud Marzuki, P. (2019). Penelitian Hukum. In Jurnal Penelitian Hukum. Sinar Grafika.

Miftahul Jennah, & Emalia. (2023). Analisis Konsep Dan Implikasi Overmacht Dalam Konteks Hukum : Tinjauan Dari Pers Pektif Hukum Perdata. Journal Sains Student Research, 1(1), 794–806. https://doi.org/10.61722/jssr.v1i1.400

Muttaqin, A. (2024). A Review of the Principle Geen Straf Zonder Schuld in Criminal Liability for Fraud Through Mystical Ritual Modus. Jurnal Peradaban Hukum, 2(2), 58–61.

Pasaribu, S. S. O. (2021). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Terhadap Penyebaran Konten Teori Konspirasi Covid-19 Dihubungkan Dengan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Dan Undang-Undang Informasi Dan Transaksi Elektronik. MAHUPAS: Mahasiswa Hukum Unpas, 1(1), 14–30. https://www.journal.unpas.ac.id/index.php/mahupas/article/view/4719%0Ahttps://www.journal.unpas.ac.id/index.php/mahupas/article/download/4719/1978

Pratama, F. D., Pebriansya, R., & Pratama, M. A. (2024). Konsep Keadilan dalam Pemikiran Aristoteles. Praxis: Jurnal Filsafat Terapan, 01(02), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.11111/praxis.xxxxxxx

RI, D. (2013). Laporan Rapat Dengar Pendapat Umum DPR RI.

Stoffel, M. (2022). Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad oleh Pemerintah Terhadap Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan Kalimantan. Law, Development and Justice Review, 4(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.14710/ldjr.v4i2.15049

Sutrisno, Fenty Puluhulawa, & Lusiana Margareth Tijow. (2022). Penerapan Asas Keadilan, Kepastian Hukum DanKemanfaatan Dalam Putusan Hakim TindakPidana Korupsi. Gorontalo Law Review, 3(2), 168–187.

Syauta, E. P., Titahelu, J. A. S., & Leasa, E. Z. (2024). Penerapan Daya Paksa dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Penganiayaan yang dilakukan Korban Terhadap Pelaku Begal. TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 4(7), 554. https://doi.org/10.47268/tatohi.v4i7.2464

Utoyo, M., & Afriani, K. (2020). SENGAJA dan TIDAK SENGAJA dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Lex Librum : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 75. https://doi.org/10.46839/lljih.v0i0.298

Wailisahalong, R., Hidaya, W. A., & Marthin, S. (2024). Studi Komparasi Antara Overmacht dengan Noodweer PerpektifUndang-Undang No. 1 Tahun 2023. Judge: Jurnal Hukum, 5(3), 21–34.

Yudhi Christiawan Samuel. (2022). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pengadaan Barang Dan Jasa Dalam Perspektif Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Hangoluan Law Review, 1(1), 1–35.

Downloads

Published

2023-10-20