UI Expert Highlights Importance of Judicial Support for Kejagung's Firm Stance Against Corruption
Jakarta — The Dean of the Faculty of Law at Universitas Indonesia (UI), Parulian Paidi Aritonang, has emphasised the importance of judicial support for the progressive steps taken by the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) in handling corruption cases, particularly regarding the expansion of the approach to state losses.
According to Parulian, Kejagung has demonstrated breakthroughs in addressing corruption cases by no longer relying solely on the actual loss approach but also incorporating potential economic losses to the state as part of the prosecution.
He believes this step deserves appreciation as it aligns with developments in legal practices in various countries. “Outside Indonesia, many are already pursuing (prosecuting) economic losses to the state,” he said.
Parulian explained that the approach, which has so far focused only on tangible losses, has been deemed insufficient to provide maximum deterrent effects for corruption perpetrators. As a result, not a few corruptors have only compensated for losses according to their ability without feeling significant punitive impacts.
In this context, he highlighted the importance of the judges’ role in supporting Kejagung’s steps. According to him, judges should not rigidly adhere to the old approach but must consider the primary goal of sentencing, which is to create a deterrent effect.
He also criticised the judicial review decision at the Constitutional Court, which affirmed that state losses are limited to actual losses. Parulian views this approach as not fully supporting efforts to strengthen the deterrent effect against corruptors.
“This does not create a deterrent effect, because corruptors have so far only paid state losses that they are able to afford,” he said.
Furthermore, Parulian emphasised that corruption not only impacts direct financial losses but also damages the broader foundations of the economy, both at the micro and macro levels. Therefore, economic losses to the state are deemed worthy of consideration in the law enforcement process.
He stated that methodologically, such economic losses can be calculated through various approaches, including impacts on the environment, the business world, and socio-economic aspects.
Parulian also referred to international practices, including the approach used in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which assesses that corruption not only causes actual financial losses but also has broad impacts on human welfare.
In the context of eradicating corruption in Indonesia, he believes this broader approach can serve as an important instrument, especially amid suboptimal recovery of state losses.
Additionally, the absence of regulations such as the Asset Forfeiture Bill poses a particular challenge in maximising the deterrent effect against corruption perpetrators.
Thus, Parulian asserted that synergy between law enforcement apparatus, particularly Kejagung and judges, is key to ensuring that anti-corruption efforts run more effectively.
“Judges must see whether the existing decisions truly support the deterrent effect or not,” he said.
He further emphasised that support for Kejagung’s approach, including in prosecuting economic losses to the state against both individuals and corporations, is an important step to strengthen the legal system and prevent recurring corruption practices.