Member Of The Legislative Council Of The House Of Representatives Values Menkum's Statement Regarding Peace Fines Is Not Wrong, As Long As The Law Is Clear

Minister of Law (Menkum) Supratman Andi Agtas. (ANTARA/HO-Ministry of Law)

Member of the Legislative Body (Baleg) of the DPR Ahmad Irawan assessed that the statement by the Minister of Law (Menkum) Supratman Andi Agtas which stated that corruptors could be forgiven through a peaceful fine was not wrong.

As long as, according to him, the discourse is accompanied by clear regulations so as not to violate the provisions.

"The discourse conveyed by the Minister of Law and Human Rights is not wrong because the norms open up space for interpretation. However, it needs clarity and firmness of the law by revising it," said Ahmad Irawan, Friday, December 27.

Irawan agreed that the Attorney General has the authority to use a peaceful fine (schikking). Even so, the authority is only for certain cases in accordance with Article 35 paragraph (1) letter k of Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law 16/2004 concerning the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia.

"The article states that the Attorney General has the duty and authority to handle criminal acts that cause state economic losses and can use peaceful fines in economic crimes based on statutory regulations," he said.

It was also explained that the peaceful fine was at least an effort to terminate cases outside the court by paying fines approved by the Attorney General. The form of application of the authority principle owned by the Attorney General is only in the criminal act of taxation, customs crime, or other economic crimes under law.

This peaceful fine is included in the restorative justice category or for the economic field, known as the fiscal recovery which is an effort to recover state economic losses.

The 'peace fine (schikking) is clearly and clearly listed as the authority of the Attorney General. But there is a postulate in reading the text of the law which reads Primo excitunda est verbis vis, ne sermonis vitio obstructural oratio, sive lex sine argumentitis,' explained Irawan.

Irawan explained that the intention of the postulate was the first thing to be examined to prevent misunderstandings or mistakes in finding the law. The further question of the mandate of Article 35 paragraph 1 letter k is what is included in the scope of economic crime.

"Can the use of a peaceful fine in economic crimes also be carried out for criminal acts that cause state economic losses?" he explained.

"Meanwhile, the core of the offense of corruption is an act that is detrimental to the country's economy," added the East Java electoral district legislator.

The member of Commission III of the DPR said that criminal acts that could harm the country's economy in reasonable reasoning are not only taxes and customs. Irawan then touched on the Harvey Moeis case, whose business practice is considered a form of harm to the state so that it is considered a form of corruption.

"Regarding corruption, it is also detrimental to the country's economy, such as the Harvey Moeis case. That is a case that is detrimental to the country's economy. Likewise, criminal acts such as environmental crimes, forestry, fisheries and marine, trade, oil and gas, mining, and others," he said.

Therefore, Irawan assessed that it was important for the government and the DPR to adjust the law on corruption crimes with the development and direction of legal politics conveyed by President Prabowo Subianto. Where it focuses more on asset recovery and losses (asset/fiscal recovery).

"Likewise, regarding efforts to fine peace, economic crimes and losses to the country's economy. We must clarify and detail the authority of the Attorney General, both based on the principle of dominus litis and/or the principle of opportunity, including the peace fine which can be executed directly by the Attorney General (semi-judge)," said Irawan.

"Thus, in my opinion, as a member of the Legislative Council of the Republic of Indonesia, the discourse conveyed by the Minister of Law and Human Rights is not wrong because the norms open up space for interpretation. The law alone needs to be clarified and confirmed, one of which is a revision effort," he concluded.