POLEMIK PASAL 3 UU NO. 31 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG TIPIKOR MENGENAI UNSUR NIAT JAHAT DAN MEMPERKAYA DIRI BAGI PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

Abstract

The Constitutional Court (MK) has received a request for judicial review of Article 2 and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption (Corruption Act) as amended by UUNo. 20 of 2001, through Decision No. 25 / PUU-XIV / 2016. In that decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the phrase "can" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption as already amended by Law No. 20 of 

2001 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force. Then it becomes
a legal issue whether the MKNo Decision is made. 25 / PUUXIV / 2016 will be a solution
to the problem of applying Article 3 of Law no. 31 of 1999 or does the reverse cause new
legal problems? The evil intention (mens rea) in the form of intent in Article 2 of the
PTPK Law above is not made clearly, but from the sentence "... unlawfully commits acts
of enriching oneself or another person or a corporation ...", then the form of intent is
included "with intent or with the aim ". This implied that PMH was carried out with the
intent or purpose of enriching oneself or another person or a corporation. Whereas
Article 3 of the PTPK Law clearly and explicitly includes the words "for the purpose of"
benefiting oneself or another person or a corporation. The subjective element inherent in
the mind of the maker according to article 3 is the creator's goal in carrying out the act
of abusing authority and others that is to benefit oneself or another person or a
corporation. definition of the element of "enriching" oneself or another person or a
corporation (vide Article 2 paragraph (1) of law number 31 of 1999 jo law number 20 of
2001), then a discussion of the meaning of elements with the aim of "benefiting oneself or
people another or a corporation "(vide Article 3 of law number 31 of 1999 in conjunction
with law number 20 of 2001), which is an alternative element so that it is not necessary
whether the perpetrators of a criminal act of corruption must enjoy the proceeds of
corruption, because it is enough that the offender has "enriched" another person or
benefited another person.