Challenging State Loss Element on Corruption Offenses from the Administration Law Perspective

Abstract

Post-reform 1998, corruption remains the main problem in Indonesia. The abundant natural resources and human resources cannot be put to good use because of the many corruption cases in Indonesia. However, not all cases of corruption occur because of the intention of the perpetrators, but it occurred because of misunderstanding in measuring elements of state losses, both at the level of investigation to prosecution. Verdict MK No. 25 / PUU-XIV / 2016 abolishes the word "can" in Article 2 paragraph 1 of the Corruption Act makes the formulation of corruption offense into material offense rather than formal offense. So that all elements contained in the formulation of the offense must be proven first. This makes understanding of the element of state loss more critical than ever. This article will attempt to explain when the state losses occur and the legal consequences of the own state losses. This article will also provide a new perspective in understanding the loss of the state from the administrative side of government. That there is no crime without errors, making the fault of state administrative officials must precede the element of the loss in this country in exercising their authority. Indonesia, as a country that embraces multi-system jurisdiction, divides the powers of the courts in separate Courts. Therefore, the differences in the existence of elements of abuse of authority also become a debate between Judicial Bodies. This difference of perception must be put together first so that it is not expected to happen injustice due to the difference of perception and then put harm to society.