Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Journal

Inconsistency in the Formulation of Article 2 and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of Corrupt Practices Eradication Law and Disparity in Criminal Penalty for Mining Corruption in the Practice of Law Enforcement

Journal of Law and Legal Reform · Vol. 6 No. 3 (2025) · pp. 1175–1206

DOI
10.15294/jllr.v6i3.19111
ISSN
2715-0968, 2715-0941
Published
2025-07-31
Publisher
Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Language
eng
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Abstract

This research discusses the transformation of understanding and law enforcement of the elements of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. The element against the law is Article 2 of the Corruption Eradication Law. In contrast, the element of abuse of authority is the core of the offense in Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. Thus, it is inappropriate to indict the perpetrators of mining corruption with an alternative form of indictment between Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. Inconsistencies in formulating the elements of the offense and the parameters of the article have resulted in disparities in punishment, errors in assessing the existence of abuse of authority by using unlawful parameters and mixing the application of the two articles. This can be viewed in several Supreme Court Decisions in mining corruption cases, where the elements and subjects of the offense are interchangeable. This research aims to study the inconsistent formulation of the elements of the offense in Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law, which has led to disparities in punishment in mining corruption cases. This study is conducted by analyzing several Supreme Court Jurisprudence. This research employs normative research with a statutory approach, concept approach, and case approach. The results of this study aim to provide a recommendation on the concept of against the law and abuse of authority in the Corruption Eradication Law.

Keywords

Collaboration network of the authors

23 authors · 72 co-authorship links

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Hasanuddin University
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
MaradonaAffiliation unknown2
Dwi MartiniAffiliation unknown1
Hayyan Ul HaqAffiliation unknown1
Sartika Nanda LestariAffiliation unknown1
Uswatun HasanahAffiliation unknown1
Deni Setya Bagus YuherawanAffiliation unknown1
Lalu Muhammad Hayyanul HaqAffiliation unknown1
Yudi Widagdo HarimurtiAffiliation unknown1
Siswanto SiswantoHasanuddin University1
Ahmad MunirAffiliation unknown1
Rr. Herini Siti AisyahAffiliation unknown1
Sudarsono SudarsonoAffiliation unknown1
Heru IriantoAffiliation unknown1
Raissa Virgy RiandaAffiliation unknown1
Rama Azalix RiandaAffiliation unknown1
M. Hadi ShubhanAffiliation unknown1
Siswandi HendartaAffiliation unknown1
Dwiarso Budi SantiartoAffiliation unknown1
Ali FikriAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/oai, first harvested 6 Nov 2026, last seen 8 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc) 
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">Inconsistency in the Formulation of Article 2 and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of Corrupt Practices Eradication Law and Disparity in Criminal Penalty for Mining Corruption in the Practice of Law Enforcement</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Suastuti, Eny</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Minarno, Nur Basuki</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Sufyan, Akhmad Farid Mawardi</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Poernomo, Gatoet</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Unlawful</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Abuse of Authority</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Mining Corruption</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">This research discusses the transformation of understanding and law enforcement of the elements of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. The element against the law is Article 2 of the Corruption Eradication Law. In contrast, the element of abuse of authority is the core of the offense in Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. Thus, it is inappropriate to indict the perpetrators of mining corruption with an alternative form of indictment between Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. Inconsistencies in formulating the elements of the offense and the parameters of the article have resulted in disparities in punishment, errors in assessing the existence of abuse of authority by using unlawful parameters and mixing the application of the two articles. This can be viewed in several Supreme Court Decisions in mining corruption cases, where the elements and subjects of the offense are interchangeable. This research aims to study the inconsistent formulation of the elements of the offense in Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law, which has led to disparities in punishment in mining corruption cases. This study is conducted by analyzing several Supreme Court Jurisprudence. This research employs normative research with a statutory approach, concept approach, and case approach. The results of this study aim to provide a recommendation on the concept of against the law and abuse of authority in the Corruption Eradication Law.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2025-07-31</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/article/view/19111</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/jllr.v6i3.19111</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Journal of Law and Legal Reform; Vol. 6 No. 3 (2025): July, 2025; 1175-1206</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2715-0968</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2715-0941</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/jllr.v6i3</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/article/view/19111/4842</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2025 Eny Suastuti, Nur Basuki Minarno, Akhmad Farid Mawardi Sufyan, Gatoet Poernomo (Author)</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>