Normative Construction Of The Guilt Recognition Mechanism In The New Criminal Code And Its Relevance To The Eradication Of Corruption In Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v10i2.176Keywords:
Guilty Plea, Plea Bargaining, CorruptionAbstract
Plea bargain is a new mechanism regulated in Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) as part of the reform of the criminal justice system in Indonesia. This mechanism allows the defendant to voluntarily admit his guilt in exchange for criminal relief. This study aims to analyze the regulation of the guilt mechanism in the new Criminal Code as a form of adaptation of plea bargaining and its relevance in corruption cases without weakening the principle of corruption eradication. The research method used is normative juridical with a legislative approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach through literature studies on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study show that the admission of guilt in the new Criminal Code is a limited form of plea bargaining because it still places the judge as the party who tests the voluntariness of the confession and the adequacy of the ukti tool. A confession of guilt cannot be used as the only basis for criminal prosecution because it requires at least two valid evidence. In corruption cases, this mechanism is relevant when used to speed up evidence, uncover the network of perpetrators, and support the recovery of state losses through asset recovery. However, its application must be strictly limited so as not to weaken the deterrent effect and principles of corruption eradication.
References
[1] M. N. F. Nasution, “Adaptasi Sistem Plea-Bargaining dalam Kerangka Hukum Pidana Indonesia : Tinjauan Komparatif dari Keywords Abstrak Kata Kunci,” Yust. Tirtayasa, vol. 5, no. 3, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.51825/yta.v5i3.36059
[2] G. Paolini, E. Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, and S. Voigt, “Plea Bargaining Procedures Worldwide: Drivers of Introduction and Use,” J. Empir. Leg. Stud., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 27–75, 2025, doi: 10.1111/jels.12406.
[3] T. Bettens and A. D. Redlich, “The Effects of Confessions on Misconduct and Guilty Pleas in Exonerations: Implications for Discovery Policies,” Criminol. Public Policy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 179–199, 2024, doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12643.
[4] C. N. Tisdale and A. M. Votruba, “Prosecutors’ Considerations when Initiating Plea Bargaining,” Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 192–214, 2024, doi: 10.1111/asap.12374.
[5] K. D. Kurniawan, D. R. I. Hapsari, and I. E. Prasetya, “Pemberlakuan Plea Bargaining System sebagai Alternatif Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana untuk Tujuan Menyelesaikan Konflik,” J. Jurisprud., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 183–199, 2021, doi: 10.23917/jurisprudence.v10i2.12949.
[6] F. R. M. Abidin and Taupiqqurrahman, “Menggagas Model Penerapan Prorogasi dalam Pemenuhan Asas Peradilan Sederhana , Cepat , dan Berbiaya Ringan,” J. USM Law Rev., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1552–1570, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v7i3.10473
[7] Ifrani, “Tindak Pidana Korupsi Sebagai Kejahatan Luar Biasa,” Al’Adl J. Huk., vol. IX, no. 3, pp. 319–336, 2017, [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.31602/al-adl.v9i3.1047
[8] P. A. Aidonojie, A. O. Odojor, and P. O. Agbale, “The Legal Impact of Plea Bargain in Settlement of High Profile Financial Criminal Cases in Nigeria,” Sriwij. Law Rev., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 2021, doi: 10.28946/slrev.Vol5.Iss2.852.pp161-174.
[9] R. Komalasari and C. Mustafa, “Strengthening Asset Recovery Efforts: A Path to Mitigating Corruption in the Public Sector,” Integritas J. Antikorupsi, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 137–148, 2024, doi: 10.32697/integritas.v10i1.1042.
[10] V. Yoel, P. Djatmika, and A. Madjid, “Policy Reformulation of Legal Protection for Cooperating Offender Witnesses (Justice Collaborators): A Case Study of Richard Eliezer,” J. Pembang. Huk. Indones., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 343–357, 2025, doi: 10.14710/jphi.v7i2.164-178.
[11] P. M. Marzuki, Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2015.
[12] Z. Ali, Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2015.
[13] R. Hermawati, “Studi Perbandingan Hukum ‘Plea Bargaining System’ di Amerika Serikat dengan ‘Jalur Khusus’ di Indonesia,” vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 102–115, 2023.
[14] M. Sapanah and K. K. Lewoleba, “Plea Bargaining and Indonesia’s Special Track Under The New KUHAP: A Comparative Study with United State,” Al-Risalah J. Ilmu Syariah dan Huk., vol. 26, no. 1, 2026, doi: 10.24252/al-risalah.vi.64931.
[15] D. Wahyudhi, S. Rahayu, E. Sudarti, and H. Liyus, “Prinsip Plea Bargaining dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana secara Cepat, Sederhana dan Biaya Ringan dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Acara Pidana,” J. Sains Sosio Hum., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 46–58, 2022, doi: 10.22437/jssh.v6i2.22592.
[16] S. M. A. Serman and U. Rozah, “Regulation of Plea Bargaining Policy for Efficient Criminal Law Enforcement: A Study of RUU KUHAP,” J. Law, Polit. Humanit., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2304–2315, 2025, doi: 10.38035/jlph.v5i4.1454.
[17] M. P. Frans, A. I. I. Sari, D. Winda, A. Alfret, and N. G. F. Simeone, “Plea Bargaining System, Deffered Prosecution Agreement, dan Judicial Scrutiny sebagai Upaya Mengatasi Overkapasitas Lembaga Pemasyarakatan,” Perspekt. Huk., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 147–173, 2024, doi: 10.30649/ph.v24i2.273.
[18] J. Gormley, “The Inefficiency of Plea Bargaining,” J. Law Soc., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 277–293, 2022, doi: 10.1111/jols.12360.
[19] F. S. Siagian, A. H. Lubis, N. A. Salwa, and S. Firouzfar, “Justice Based Corruption Eradication Policy: A Comparison Between Indonesia and Denmark,” Integritas J. Antikorupsi, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 29–52, 2024, doi: 10.32697/integritas.v10i1.1134.
[20] Y. Yoserwan and F. S. Dias, “Implementing The Anti-Money Laundering Law: Optimizing Asset Recovery in Corruption Cases in Indonesia,” J. Huk. dan Peradil., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 227–250, 2024, doi: 10.25216/jhp.13.2.2024.227-250.
[21] H. Handrawan, F. Faisal, F. Nur, and A. Pratama, “Rekonstruksi Restoratif Justice Dalam Pemberantasan Korupsi: Membangun Keadilan Menuju Indonesia Emas 2045,” J. Huk. IUS QUIA IUSTUM, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 475–504, 2025, doi: 10.20885/iustum.vol32.iss2.art9.
[22] S. Lasmadi and E. Sudarti, “Restorative Justice as an Alternative for The Settlement of Corruption Crimes That Adverse State Finances in The Perspective of The Purpose of Conviction,” J. IUS Kaji. Huk. dan Keadilan, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 287–298, 2021, doi: 10.29303/ius.v9i2.904.
[23] N. A. Murtadho and M. G. P. W. Ramadhan, “Harmonisation of Criminal Policy on Corruption Offences in the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia,” Integritas J. Antikorupsi, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 295–308, 2025, doi: 10.32697/integritas.v11i2.1588.
[24] D. E. K. Wardani, M. Anggraeni, and A. Rizal, “Legal Strategies for Corruption Asset Recovery and Public Trust,” Arena Huk., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 340–372, 2025, doi: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum2025.01803.1.
