Criminal Liability For Corruption Defendants Who Are Tried In Absentia (Study of Decision Number 6/Pid.Sus-TPK/2020/PN.Jkt.Pst)

Abstract

This research departs from the phenomenon of perpetrators of corruption crimes who flee so that the trial process cannot be attended by the defendant, but the state still needs to ensure legal certainty and save state losses through the in absentia examination mechanism. The problems studied include the legal arrangement of the defendant who escaped and the application of criminal liability in Decision Number 6/Pid.Sus-TPK/2020/PN.Jkt.Pst reviewed from the legal objectives and protection of the defendant's human rights as well as the judge's legal considerations in making the decision. This research uses normative legal methods through a legislative approach and a case approach. The results of the study show that the authority to examine cases without the presence of the defendant, as stipulated in Article 38 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Law, is a juridical step to prevent the obstruction of the judicial process and still provide space for the fulfillment of the defendant's basic rights. Analysis of the decision shows that the mechanism in absentia in Decision Number 6/Pid.Sus-TPK/2020/PN.Jkt.Pst is in line with the principles of legal certainty, usefulness, and still pays attention to the principles of justice. This study recommends that law enforcement officials strengthen legal summons procedures and documentation of judicial processes as a form of human rights protection in the application in absentia.