This study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the legal implications which arise regarding the subject and scope of responsibility for the fulfillment of human rights including the social security rights of Indonesian citizens, as referred to the Constitution as the highest law and to reflect on the purpose of law or constitution (conclusion of law, legal discovery). This type of research is normative juridical, with a philosophical approach, a conceptual approach and a statutory approach. Data analysis was carried out using qualitative techniques with descriptive analysis. The research results show that there is no clarity regarding the legal implications of the subject and the scope of responsibility for the fulfillment of human rights including social security rights. This ambiguity occurs because of the blurring of legal norms regarding human rights in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, particularly regarding the regulation of the responsibility for the fulfillment of human rights including social security rights, regarding the subjects who must be responsible for and the scope of their responsibilities for implementing social guarantees.

The aim of the research is to learn more about the concept of beneficial ownership (BO) as an approach for criminal liability in lieu of spatial planning crimes for corporations that lack assets or corporations that can only pay a portion of the crime. Several regions of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia have experienced widespread violations of spatial planning, according to some experts, as a result of substantive weaknesses, including the UUPR’s criminal sanction system’s philosophical, theoretical, and legal flaws, particularly its criminal sanctions for corporations. Theoretically, several theories of corporate criminal responsibility have not been able to reach corporate convicts in spatial planning crimes. The research method uses normative juridical methods. This research method is a legal research method that bases its analysis on applicable laws and regulations that are relevant to the research topic. The results of the study show that the UUPR on corporate criminal sanctions is incomplete, and the formulation of the norms does not address substitute punishment for corporate criminals who lack assets or who can only afford a part of their sentence. The UUPR’s corporate criminal sanctions were not functional as a result of the incompleteness of the norms’ formulation, preventing the achievement of the law’s goals. The term “beneficial ownership” (BO) refers to natural persons who ultimately own or control (ultimately owns or controls) clients and/or people whose transactions are executed on their behalf. The BO concept and regulations regarding BO transparency indicate that it can be used as an approach to reach alternative criminal liability for corporations. In terms of philosophy, the BO concept is consistent with the goal of criminal punishment for corporations; specifically, by imprisoning the actual beneficiary, the payment of the penalty can be used to return the space’s damage to its original state, or at the very least, it can have a deterrent effect on those who use the space in an improper manner. So, for the Ius constituendum it is proposed to formulate criminal norms in lieu of fines for corporations by expanding accountability through the beneficial ownership (BO) concept approach.

Spatial planning corporate criminal sanctions are criminal sanctions imposed on corporations as stipulated in Article 74 of Law Number 26 of 2007. The criminal sanction can be applied in controlling the planning of the territory so that there is order and the space is protected from violations of the use of the space. However, when looking at the data on zoning violations, this hope is still illusory where existing law has failed to deal with corporate violations. In addition, criminal liability has not reached the beneficiaries of the proceeds of corporate crimes so that the legal objectives are not achieved. The aim of this study is to find out what the legal implications of incomplete criminal sanctions instead of fines are for corporations in land-use offences. This research is a normative legal study with multiple approaches, including statutory approaches, case approaches, historical approaches, comparative approaches, and conceptual approaches. Legal material analysis techniques are performed in perspective. The results of the study show that the legal implication of incomplete criminal penalties instead of fines for corporations in land-use offenses is expressed only by Article 74 para. (1) to the Territorial Planning Law (UUPR) 26/2007 - Criminal sanctions for corporations. This cannot simply be operationalized because there is no regulation on the mode of committing crimes (straf modus), there are multiple interpretations that cause confusion. They lead to the non-fulfillment of the legal objectives in the article a quo.