ABSTRAK
Karakteristik delik korporasi yang berbeda dari street crime membuat sejumlahahli memandang bahwa ultimum remedium tidak lagi relevan dalam kontekspertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi. Pertanyaannya adalah (1) bagaimanakahkonsep dan makna ultimum remedium dalam hukum pidana dan kaitannya denganHak Asasi Manusia? (2) bagaimana perumusan ultimum remedium di dalamkonteks pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi? dan (3) bagaimanakahimplementasi ultimum remedium dalam pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi diIndonesia?. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis-normatif dengan multi-pendekatan.Wawancara dilakukan untuk mengklarifikasi data sekunder yang ada. Hasilnyamenunjukkan bahwa sejak tahun 1955-2016 terdapat 115 UU yang menempatkankorporasi sebagai subjek delik, diantaranya korupsi, perpajakan, lingkunganhidup, dan pencucian uang. Keempat UU yang dianalisis menunjukkan bahwaadministrative penal law cenderung bersifat ultimum remedium dibandingkan UUPidana. PERMA No.13 Tahun 2016 cenderung bersifat primum remedium karenasubstansinya lebih banyak memuat aturan prosedural daripada substantif.Sedangkan RKUHP 2015 memiliki pola ultimum remedium yang kuat, yakniadanya pedoman pemidanaan, double track system, dan pidana tambahan berupapembubaran korporasi merupakan sarana terakhir. Putusan hakim cenderungbersifat primum remedium (analisis dilakukan terhadap putusan PT Giri JaladhiWana, Asian Agri Group, dan PT Kallista Alam). Pengecualian ultimumremedium seperti itu boleh saja dilakukan mengingat karakteristik delik korporasi,yakni serius, lintas batas, mengancam sendi perekonomian, dan korban yangsamar dan luas. Namun demikian, terdapat pula kemungkinan penerapan ultimumremedium melalui partisipasi korporasi dalam kebijakan hukum pidana.
ABSTRACT
The characteristics of corporate offense that are different from street crime makesome experts consider that ultimum remedium is no longer relevant in the context ofcorporate criminal liability. The questions are (1)how is the concept and meaning ofultimum remedium in criminal law and its relation to human rights? (2)how isultimum remedium formulated within the context of corporate criminal liability? and(3)how is the implementation of ultimum remedium in corporate criminal liability inIndonesia?. This research is juridical-normative with multi-approach. Interviews areconducted to clarify the existing secondary data. The results are: Since 1955-2016there are 115 laws that place corporations as the subject of offenses, includingcorruption, taxation, environment, and money laundering. The four laws analyzedindicate that administrative penal law tends to be ultimum remedium compared to theCriminal Acts. Supreme Court Regulation No.13 of 2016 tends to be primumremedium because the substance contains more prosedural law than substantive.While Model Penal Code 2015 has a strong ultimum remedium pattern, namely thesentencing guidelines, double track system, and corporate dissolution is a last resortof additional criminal sanction. The judge's verdict tended to be primum remedium(analysis was made on PT Giri Jaladhi Wana, Asian Agri Group and PT KallistaAlam). Such exclusion of ultimum remedium are justifiable because of corporateoffences that are serious, transboundary, threatening the economic pillar, and thevague and widespread of victim. However, there is also the possibility of applyingultimum remedium through corporate participation in criminal law policy. |
T48755-Arija Br Ginting.pdf :: Unduh