DISPARITAS PUTUSAN TERHADAP PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DI KABUPATEN BOMBANA  (Studi Kasus Putusan Perkara Nomor 48/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/ PN. Kdi Dan Perkara Nomor 05/Pid.Sus /TPK/2016/PN.Kdi)

Alhadist Alhadist; La Niasa; Amir Faisal

Alhadist Alhadist Universitas Sulawesi Tenggara
La Niasa Universitas Sulawesi Tenggara
Amir Faisal Universitas Sulawesi Tenggara

Keywords: Bombana Regency, Criminal Acts, Corruption, Disparity in Decisions.

Abstract

This study aims to determine the factors causing the disparity in the verdict of the Panel of Judges of the Kendari District Court in the verdict of the corruption case against case Number: 05 / Pid.Sus / TPK / 2016 / PN.Kdi. And Case Decision No. 48 / Pid.Sus / TPK / 2015 / PN.Kdi). (2). To find out what is the basis for the emergence of disparity in the verdict in case Number: 05 / Pid.Sus / TPK / 2016 / PN.Kdi. And Case Decision No. 48 / Pid.Sus / TPK / 2015 / PN.Kdi). This study was conducted at the Kendari District Court Office with the consideration that the institution is a First Level Judicial Institution that decides on Corruption Cases in the Southeast Sulawesi Jurisdiction Area. The type of field research is in the form of interviews with the Panel of Judges at the Kendari Corruption Court and literature. This research is also descriptive analytical in nature where the content is created and arranged systematically and comprehensively. This descriptive analysis is included to describe all data obtained related to the research title clearly and in detail which is then analyzed to answer the existing problems. The results of the study indicate that the cause of the disparity in decisions in the two cases is a legal factor, that the provisions in Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001, recognize the existence of maximum and minimum penalties so that to determine the severity of the sentence imposed is entirely left to the judge so that disparity in decisions is certain to occur, both law enforcement officers, in terms of the Public Prosecutor's Demands, in the indictment the two defendants were charged with alternative charges with the same article but in different charges, and the Panel of Judges who examined the two cases in making their decisions solely based on the Public Prosecutor's indictment without considering the facts in the trial so that the two decisions of the case regarding the length of imprisonment and the fines imposed were very different.