Reverse Evidence System in Corruption Crime: Critical Analysis, Obstacles and Challenges
Abstract
This research aims to discuss the legal arrangements of reverse evidence in corruption trials and comprehensively examine the obstacles and challenges of reverse evidence in corruption cases. The type of research is normative juridical, which discusses certain legal phenomena and analyses them based on laws or norms that live in society. The results of this study show that the reverse proof system is regulated in the provisions of Article 37, Article 37A, and Article 38B of Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption, which states the defendant's obligation to prove otherwise against property owned not derived from the proceeds of corruption crimes. Reverse proof of corruption crimes has obstacles and challenges such as legal substance factors, focus of proof, inconsistency, violation of rights, and resistance of law enforcement. The challenges of reverse proof are: improving the performance, professionalism, and integrity of law enforcement officials, as well as the clarity of regulations to apply reverse evidence outside of corruption crimes such as narcotics and terrorism.
References
S. Amalia, “Analisis Dampak Korupsi Pada Masyarakat (Studi Kasus Korupsi Pembangunan Shelter Tsunami di Kecamatan Labuan Kabupaten Pandeglang),” Epistemik Indones J Soc Polit Sci, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 55, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.57266/epistemik.v3i1.77.
I. Putra and K. Fahmi, “Independensi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi Pasca Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019,” J Konstitusi, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 332, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.31078/jk1824.
E. R. Prasetia, “Sistem Pembuktian Terbalik Dalam Pembuktian Perkara Gratifikasi,” J Verstek, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 185, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v2i2.38863.
Y. P. Ginting, “Implementasi Sistem Pembuktian Terbalik Dalam Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Indonesia,” J Pengabdi West Sci, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 884–885, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.58812/jpws.v2i10.690.
M. R. . Sibarani, “Penerapan Omkering Van Bewijslast Dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi Indonesia,” Honeste Vivere, vol. 33, no. 2, p. 155, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.55809/hv.v33i2.254.
R. P. Aldi Naradwipa Simamora, “Tinjauan Tentang Sistem Pembuktian Terbalik (Reversal Burden Of Proof) Dalam Pemeriksaan Perkara Gratifikasi,” J Verstek, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 128, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v3i2.39087.
D. Anggraeni and N. Damayanti, “Penegakan Hukum yang Berkeadilan di Indonesia,” Indig Knowl, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 195, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/indigenous/article/view/74712
Agustina and S. Purnomo, “Kajian Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa Kegagalan Bangunan Dalam Pekerjaan Konstruksi,” J RECTUM Tinj Yuridis Penanganan Tindak Pidana, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 43, May 2023, doi: 10.46930/jurnalrectum.v5i2.3153.
H. J. Pandiangan, “Perbedaan Hukum Pembuktian Dalam Perspektif Hukum Acara Pidana Dan Perdata,” to-ra, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 569, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.33541/tora.v3i2.1154.
D. Febriyanti and D. Rahmadan, “Kedudukan Keterangan Ahli Dalam Pembuktian Perkara Tindak Pidana Kebakaran Hutan Dan Lahan Di Sidang Pengadilan,” J Multiling, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 296, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.26499/multilingual.v3i3.359.
M. Irfan, “Kekuatan Pembuktian Alat Bukti Petunjuk Pada Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Berencana,” UNES J Swara Justisia, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 106, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.31933/ujsj.v4i2.156.
W. Wiriadinata, “Korupsi dan Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian,” J Konstitusi, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 323–325, May 2016, doi: 10.31078/jk924.
A. Syauket and F. N. Eleanora, “Asas Praduga Tidak Bersalah dan Sistem Hukum Pembuktian di Indonesia,” J Ilm Raad Kertha, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 2, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.47532/jirk.v6i1.724.
D. Firdaus and A. Suyadi, “Independensi Penegak Hukum Sebuah Harapan Besar Bagi Masyarakat,” Rechtsregel J Ilmu Huk, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 142, 2024, doi: 10.32493/rjih.v6i2.37481.
S. Lasmadi and E. Sudarti, “Pembuktian Terbalik Pada Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang,” Refleks Huk J Ilmu Huk, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 202, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.24246/jrh.2021.v5.i2.p199-218.
M. Mansari and H. Y. Ritonga, “Pemidanaan Terhadap Penggelapan Harta Dari Nikah Siri,” J Yudisial, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 287, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.29123/jy.v15i3.532.
R. Aripin and R. T. Putri, “Perlindungan Hak Terdakwa dalam Proses Hukum ditinjau dari prinsip Hukum " In Dubio Pro Reo ",” J Kaji Huk dan Kebijak Publik, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 55, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.62379/vbjenk88.
E. Dalilah and V. Juwono, “Evaluasi Implementasi Kebijakan LHKPN: Dimensi Program,” Integritas J Antikorupsi, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 316, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.32697/integritas.v7i2.861.
M. Al Faridzi and G. Nachrawi, “Kualifikasi Kejahatan Luar Biasa Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 301 K/Pid.Sus/2021),” J Kewarganegaraan, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 3016, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.31316/jk.v6i2.3244.
H. Hasuri and M. Mukaromah, “Pembuktian Tebalik Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia,” ADLIYA J Huk dan Kemanus, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 167–168, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.15575/adliya.v14i2.9605.
S. P. Putri, “Kompleksitas Penegakan Hukum Di Indonesia,” Din Huk Masy, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 6, May 2023, doi: 10.30737/dhm.v5i2.4651.
S. Idayanti, T. Haryadi, and T. V. Widyastuti, “Penegakan Supremasi Hukum Melalui Implementasi Nilai Demokrasi,” Diktum J Ilmu Huk, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 85, May 2020, doi: 10.24905/diktum.v8i1.85.
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Arif Sahlepi, Fitra Mamanda Tarigan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
