Penerapan Doktrin Business Judgement Rule dalam Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dikaitkan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas

Mathias Reinhard Gandaria; Sigid Suseno; Aam Suryamah

doi:10.33648/jtm.v4i1.362

Mathias Reinhard Gandaria Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia
Sigid Suseno Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia
Aam Suryamah Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33648/jtm.v4i1.362

Keywords: Corruption Crime, Law Enforcement, Director of the State-Owned Enterprises, Business Judgment Rule

Abstract

In the framework of law enforcement in Indonesia, the issue of corruption is one of the things that is highlighted by the public. Some of these cases often involve defendants as Directors who serve in State-Owned Enterprises. In some of these cases, it can be seen that there is the existence of the business judgment rule doctrine. However, the application of the business judgment rule doctrine in some of these cases is also different and raises various problems. Therefore, this has the potential to cause injustice and legal uncertainty as the goal of law enforcement in Indonesia, especially for the Directors of State-Owned Enterprises. This article uses a form of research method in the form of a normative juridical approach, with descriptive analytical research specifications. The data collection technique in this article was by means of a literature study, namely through primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials in order to analyze the problems in the research. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that there is a disparity in decisions, where the elements that have been explicitly stated in Article 97 paragraph (5) letters a-d of the Company Law, known as the business judgment rule, are considered with a different understanding in each case by the examining judge and case breaker to be linked to existing legal facts as well as facts revealed in court both at the judex facti and judex juris levels. Thus, this clearly does not reflect the objective of the law itself which needs to be achieved through good and correct law enforcement.

Keywords: Corruption Crime, Law Enforcement, Director of the State-Owned Enterprises, Business Judgment Rule

References

Akram, M., Hayyi, S., Karim, M. S., & Ilmar, A. (2021). urgensi penerapan doktrin business judgment rule terhadap direksi bumn dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi. jurnal ilmiah pendidikan pancasila dan kewarganegaraan, 6(1), 72–81. http://journal2.um.ac.id/index.php/jppk

Ali, A. (2010). Menguak Teori Hukum (Legal Theory) & Teori Peradilan (Judicialprudence) Termasuk Undang-Undang (Legisprudence). Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Andi, H. J. (2005). Pemberantasan Korupsi. PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Apeldoorn, L. J. Van. (2004). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Pradnya Paramita.

Asep N. Mulyana. (2018). Business Judgment Rule Praktik Peradilan Terhadap Penyimpangan Dalam Pengelolaan BUMN/BUMD. Gramedia.

Fuady, M. (2014). Doktrin-Doktrin Modern dalam Corporate Law dan Eksistensinya dalam Hukum Indonesia. Citra Aditya Bakti .

Hamzah, A. (2007). Pemberantasan Korupsi Melalui Hukum Pidana Nasional dan Internasional. RajaGrafindo Persada.

Hapsah Isfardiyana, S. (2017). Business Judgement Rule Oleh Direksi Perseroan. Jurnal Panorama Hukum, 2(1).

Kasim, H. (2017). Memikirkan Kembali Pengawasan Badan Usaha Milik Negara Berdasarkan Business Judgement Rules Rethinking the Supervision of State-Owned Enterprises Based on Business Judgement Rules. Jurnal Konstitusi, 14(2), 441–462.

Mulhadi. (2010). Hukum Perusahaan. Ghalia.

Pergulatan, S. (2002). Hukum Perdata. Pradnya Paramita.

Pope, J. (2003). Strategi Memberantas Korupsi,Elemen Sistem Integritas Nasional . Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Prasetio. (2014). Dilema BUMN Benturan Penerapan Business Judgement Rule (BJR) dalam Keputusan Bisnis Direksi BUMN. Rayyana Komunikasindo.

Rajagukguk, E. (2007). Pengelolaan Perusahaan Yang Baik: Tanggung Jawab Pemegang Saham, Komisaris, dan Direksi. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 26(3).

Sastrawidjaja, M. (2012). Kedudukan Kekayaan PT (Persero) Dalam Rezim UU No. 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara, Sebuah Pemikiran dari Sisi Hukum Bisnis, Kompilasi Hukum Bisnis. CV Keni .

Siahaan, L. O. (2006). Peran Hakim Dalam Pembaruan Hukum di Indonesia Hal-Hal Yang Harus Diketahui (Proses Berfikir) Hakim Agar Dapat Menghasilkan Putusan Yang Berkeadilan. Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan, 36(1).

Suseno. (1994). Etika Politik: Prinsip-prinsip Moral Dasar Kenegaraan Modern. Gramedia.

Zainul, M., Firman, A., & Muntaqo. (2019). Penerapan Prinsip Detournement De Pouvoir Terhadap Tindakan Pejabat Bumn Yang Mengakibatkan Kerugian Negara Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 Tentang Keuangan Negara. Jurnal Raden Fatah, 177–194.

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1401 K/Pid.Sus/2014.

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 417 K/Pid.Sus/2014.

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 41 PK/Pid.Sus/2015.

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 003/PUU-IV/2006.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 44/PUU-XI/2013.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016.

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 Amandemen Keempat.

Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.

Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2003 tentang Badan Usaha Milik Negara.

Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas.