Regulatory Harmonization of Plea Bargaining for Petty Corruption in Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System

Eben Patar Opsunggu; Azis  Budianto

doi:10.63142/al-battar.v2i3.450

Authors

Eben Patar Opsunggu Universitas Borobudur Author
Azis Budianto Universitas Borobudur Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63142/al-battar.v2i3.450

Keywords:

Plea Bargaining, Petty Corruption, Criminal Justice System, Legal Efficiency, Regulatory Harmonization

Abstract

The eradication of corruption in Indonesia continues to face structural challenges, particularly in the handling of petty corruption cases that involve relatively small state losses but consume disproportionate law enforcement resources. This study aims to analyze the urgency, feasibility, and regulatory implications of implementing a plea bargaining mechanism as an alternative resolution model for petty corruption cases within Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Using a normative juridical method with statutory and conceptual approaches, this research examines relevant laws, including the Anti-Corruption Law, the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), and the Prosecutor’s Office Law, as well as comparative practices from the United States, Italy, and the Philippines. The findings indicate that the absence of explicit legal regulation has resulted in procedural rigidity, inefficiency, and suboptimal recovery of state losses in minor corruption cases. Plea bargaining, if strictly limited and transparently regulated, has the potential to enhance legal efficiency, prioritize restitution of state losses, reduce judicial and correctional burdens, and support a more restorative justice orientation. This study concludes that regulatory harmonization through limited revisions to the Corruption Law and KUHAP, complemented by clear prosecutorial guidelines issued by the Attorney General’s Office, is essential to ensure accountability, legal certainty, and public trust. Properly designed plea bargaining should be positioned not as a form of impunity, but as a strategic instrument to optimize corruption eradication while upholding substantive justice and the rule of law.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akbar, A., dan F. H. Jafar. “Penerapan Restorative Justice dalam Perkara Korupsi sebagai Wujud Peradilan Sederhana, Cepat, dan Biaya Ringan.” Jurnal Ius Constituendum 8, no. 2 (2023): 239–258.

Fernando, Z. J. “Due Process of Law dalam Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana di Indonesia.” Majalah Keadilan 21, no. 1 (2021): 67–89.

Firmansah, M. H., dan W. Ariyani. “The Urgency of Implementing Plea Bargaining in Resolving Corruption Crime Cases in Indonesia.” Uniglobal Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 3, no. 1 (2024): 64–70.

Gemilang, H. F., dan R. D. Agustanti. “Penggunaan Plea Bargaining dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana: Menyeimbangkan Efisiensi dan Keadilan.” Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum 4, no. 3 (2023): 422–431.

Gormley, J. “The Inefficiency of Plea Bargaining.” Journal of Law and Society 49, no. 2 (2022): 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12340

Hermawati, R. “Studi Perbandingan Hukum ‘Plea Bargaining System’ di Amerika Serikat dengan ‘Jalur Khusus’ di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis 4, no. 1 (2023): 102–115.

Hestaria, H., M. S. Hartono, dan M. J. Setianto. “Tinjauan Yuridis Penerapan Prinsip Restorative Justice terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Rangka Penyelamatan Keuangan Negara.” Jurnal Komunitas Yustisia 5, no. 3 (2022): 112–128.

Jatikusuma, R. M. A., dan N. Nurbaedah. “Plea Bargaining System (Kesepakatan dalam Proses Hukum Pidana) dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Kecil (Petty Corruption).” Mizan: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 14, no. 1 (in press, 2025): 128–137.

Kabba, S. H., I. M. Arjaya, dan M. M. Widyantara. “Prosedur Pengembalian dan Pemulihan Kerugian Negara Akibat Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Konstruksi Hukum 3, no. 1 (2022): 68–74.

Kurniawan, I. D., dan W. Budyatmojo. “The Urgency of Implementing Plea Bargaining in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System.” Jurnal Education and Development 13, no. 1 (2025): 205–209.

Langer, M. “Plea Bargaining, Conviction without Trial, and the Global Administratization of Criminal Convictions.” Annual Review of Criminology 4, no. 1 (2021): 377–411.

Maramis, J. “Penambahan Plea Bargaining dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia.” Lex Administratum 10, no. 5 (2022).

Mudrika, M., J. Sriwidodo, dan D. S. Dewi. “Penerapan Restorative Justice Tindak Pidana Korupsi dengan Nominal Kecil dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia.” SENTRI: Jurnal Riset Ilmiah 2, no. 12 (2023): 5261–5272.

Purnomo, A. “Pendekatan Restorative Justice dalam Menyelesaikan Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Indonesia dalam Hal Pemulihan Keuangan Negara.” Justicia Sains: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 8, no. 2 (2023): 531–543.

Sadik-Zada, E. R., A. Gatto, dan I. Niftiyev. “E-Government and Petty Corruption in Public Sector Service Delivery.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 36, no. 12 (2024): 3987–4003.

Sajali, M. “Sanksi Pidana Korupsi dalam Hukum Positif (Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 juncto Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001) Perspektif Hukum Pidana Islam dan Hak Asasi Manusia.” Siyasah 3, no. 1 (2023): 118–136.

Sutarna, I. T., dan A. Subandi. “Korupsi Dana Desa dalam Perspektif Principal–Agent.” Jurnal Administrasi Pemerintahan Desa 4, no. 2 (2023): 121–136.

Thaman, S. C. Plea Bargaining in the United States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024.

Wilford, M. M., G. L. Wells, dan A. Frazier. “Plea-Bargaining Law: The Impact of Innocence, Trial Penalty, and Conviction Probability on Plea Outcomes.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 46, no. 3 (2021): 554–575.

Yang, R., A. Hutahean, dan T. Sudjiarto. “Restorative Justice dalam Kasus Korupsi: Pro dan Kontra.” Journal Scientific of Mandalika (JSM) 6, no. 7 (2025): 2010–2015.