A'an Efendi



Ketiadaan kejelasan makna menyalahgunakan wewenang sebagai bagian inti tindak pidana korupsi dalam Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 (UU PTPK), berimplikasi pada kewajiban bagi hakim yang menerapkan pasal tersebut terhadap kasus konkret (kasus tindak pidana korupsi), untuk melakukan interpretasi guna menemukan apa makna yang sebenarnya. Penelitian ini fokus pada masalah interpretasi modern untuk menemukan makna menyalahgunakan wewenang dalam tindak pidana korupsi. Tipe penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum doktrinal dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, dan pendekatan kasus. Penelitian ini menghasilkan kesimpulan: pertama, menyalahgunakan wewenang dalam tindak pidana korupsi berdasarkan UU PTPK harus ditafsirkan dalam konteks tindak pidana dalam ruang lingkup hukum pidana bukan hukum administrasi. Kedua, Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 977 K/Pid/2004 yang menafsirkan makna menyalahgunakan wewenang dalam Pasal 3 UU PTPK dengan mengambil alih konsep menyalahgunakan wewenang dalam hukum administrasi adalah tidak tepat. Menafsirkan menyalahgunakan wewenang dalam Pasal 3 UU PTPK sama dengan menyalahgunakan wewenang dalam hukum administrasi, berimplikasi pada dualism pengaturan dan penyelesaian menyalahgunakan wewenang, dan hal ini berakibat pada tidak adanya kepastian hukum.

Kata kunci: interpretasi modern; menyalahgunakan wewenang; korupsi.



The lack of clarity on the definition of the term “abusing authority” as the core element of corruption, as stated in Article 3 of Law Number 20 of 2001 (PTPK Law), implies the obligation for judges who apply the article against concrete cases to interpret the real meaning. This research focuses on the problem of modern (contemporary) interpretation to find the purpose of abusing the authority in corruption. The type of research is doctrinal legal research with the legislation approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. This research concludes: First, abusing authority in corruption must be interpreted in the context of criminal acts within the scope of criminal law rather than administrative law. Second, the Supreme Court Decision Number 977 K/Pid/2004 that understanding the meaning of abusing authority in Article 3 of the PTPK Law by taking over the concept of abusing authority in administrative law is inappropriate. Interpreting the term “abusing authority” in Article 3 of the PTPK Law is similar to that in administrative law, can be implicated in the dualism of regulation and resolution of this problem, and this can cause the absence of legal certainty.

Keywords: modern interpretation; abuse of authority; corruption.


modern interpretation; abuse of authority; corruption

Full Text:




Efendi, A. & Poernomo, F. (2017). Hukum administrasi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Fleming, P. & Zyglidopoulos, S.C. (2009). Charting corporate corruption: Agency, structure & sscalation. UK: Edward Elgar.

Garner, B.A. (Ed). (2004). Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul: Thomson West.

Hadjon, P.M. & Djatmiati, T.S. (2005). Argumentasi hukum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Kelsen, H. (2005). Pure theory of law. Translation from the Second (Revised and Enlarged) German Edition by Max Knight. Clarck. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

Martin, E.A. (2002). A dictionary of law. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marzuki, P.M. (2005). Penelitian hukum. Jakarta: Prenada Media.

McLeod, T.I. (1996). Legal method. Second Edition. London: Macmillan Press.

Mertokusumo, S. & Pitlo, A. (1993). Bab-bab tentang penemuan hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Mertokusumo, S. (2009). Penemuan hukum suatu pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Ogden, C.K. & Richards, I.A. (1923). The meaning of meaning a study of the influence of language upon thought & the science of symbolism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2008). OECD glossaries corruption a glossary of international standards in criminal law. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Pradel, J. (2008). Criminal law. Bermann, G.A. & Picand, E. (Eds). Introduction to French Law. AH Alphen aan den Rijn, The Nethrlands: Kluwer Law International.

Putman, W.H. (1998). Legal analysis & writing for paralegals. Albany, NY: West Publishing.

Schwartz, B. (2006). French Administrative Law & the common-law world. Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

Seerden, R. & Stroink, F. (2002). Administrative law in the Netherlands.

Seerden, R. & Stroink, F. (Eds). Administrative law of the Eurpean Union, its member states & the United States: Comparative analysis. Antwerpen-Groningen: Intersentia Uitgevers.

Sekretariat Jenderal DPR RI [Setjen DPR RI]. (1999). Risalah Rapat Panitia Khusus Rancangan Undang-Undang tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jakarta: Sekretaris Panitia Khusus Sekretariat Jenderal DPR-RI.


Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. (2017). UNCAC in a Nutshell. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre Brief, 7, 1-8.

Argyrou, A. (2017). Making the case for case studies in empirical legal research. Utrecht Law Review, 13(3), 95-113.

Auby, J.M. (1970, July). The abuse of power in French Administrative Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 18(3), 549-564.

Barnett, R.E. (2011). Interpretation & construction. Harvards Journal of Law & Public Policy, 34(1), 66-72.

Bhargava, V. (2005, October). The cancer of corruption. World Bank Global Issue Seminar Series, 1-9.

Brannon, V.C. (2018, April). Statutory interpretaion: Theories, tools, & trends. Congressional Research Servive, 1-64.

Brett, P. (1953). The theory of interpreting statutes. The University of Queensland Law Journal, 2(2), 99-113.

Conseil de L'europe. (1999). Explanatory report to the criminal law convention on corruption. European Treaty Series, 173, 1-29.

De Sloovere, F.J. (1936). Contextual interpretation of statutes. Fordham Law Review, 5(2), 219-239.

Dworkin, R. (1982). Law as interpretation. Texas Law Review, 60(60), 527-550.

Fallon Jr, R.H. (2014, May). Three symmetries between textualist & purposivist theories of statutory interpretation & the irreducible roles of values & judgement within both. Cornell Law Review, 99(685), 685-734.

Hadjon, P.M. (2015, Maret). Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam konteks Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 4(1), 51-64.

Hutchinson, T. (2008). Critique & comment developing legal research skills: Expanding the paradigm. Melbourne University Law Review, 32(3), 1065-1095.

Klass, G. (2018). Interpretation & constructionin contract law. George University Law Center, 1-48.

Li, J. & Piccolo, D.M. (2007). Reviving the modern rule in the interpretation of tax statutes: Baby steps taken in Canada Trustco, Mathew, Placer Dome & Imperial Oil. CLPE Research Paper Series, 03(06), 1-44.

Parchomiuk, J. (2018). Abuse of discretionary powers in Administrative Law. Evolution of the judicial review models: from "administrative morality" to the principle of proportionality. Casopis pro Pravni Vedu a Paxi, XXVI(3), 453-478.

Solum, L.B. (2010). The interpretation-construction distinction. Constitutional Commentary, 27(95), 95-118.

Talmadge, P.A. (2011). A new approach to statutory interpretation in Washington. Seattle University Law Review, 25(179), 179-211.

Tanzi, V. (1998, May). Corruption around the world: Causes, consequences, scope, & cures. IMF Working Paper, Fiscal Affairs Department International Monetary Fund, 98(63), 1-39.

Wouters, J., Ryngaert, C., & Cloots, A.S. (2013). The international legal framework against corruption: Achievements & challenges. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 14, 1-76.

Sumber lainnya> word > corrupt. Diakses 9 Februari 2019.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Jurnal Yudisial

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.