When anti-corruption norms lead to undesirable results: learning from the Indonesian experience.
This paper analyzes how and why adverse side-effects have occurred in the implementation of two articles of Indonesia’s anti-corruption law. These articles prohibit unlawful acts which may be detrimental to the finances of the state. Indeed, the lawmakers had good intentions when they drafted the tw...
| Publicado en: | Crime, Law & Social Change Vol. 70; no. 3; pp. 383 - 397 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Oct2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=131779501&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 131779501 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 09254994 CRG jtl: Crime, Law & Social Change issn: 09254994 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2018 vid: 70 iid: 3 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 131779501 10.1007/s10611-017-9737-8 ppf: 383 ppct: 14 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 441KB tig: atl: When anti-corruption norms lead to undesirable results: learning from the Indonesian experience. aug: au: Wibowo, Richo Andi affil: Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sosio Justitia 1, 55231, Yogyakarta, Indonesia su: Legislators Public administration Corruption laws Public contracts Constitutional courts sug: subj: Legislators Public administration Courts Other General Government Support Corruption laws Public contracts Constitutional courts ab: This paper analyzes how and why adverse side-effects have occurred in the implementation of two articles of Indonesia’s anti-corruption law. These articles prohibit unlawful acts which may be detrimental to the finances of the state. Indeed, the lawmakers had good intentions when they drafted the two articles. They wanted to make it easier to convict corrupt individuals by lowering the standard of evidence required to prove criminal liability. The implementation of these articles has raised legal uncertainty. The loose definition of the elements of the crime enables negligence and imperfection of (public) contracts to be considered as corruption. The Constitutional Court has issued two rulings to restrict and guide the interpretation of these articles. However, law enforcement agencies (Supreme Court and public prosecutors) have been unwilling to adhere to the rulings. There are two possible reasons for this. First, as has been argued by several commentators, the law enforcement agencies have misinterpreted the concept of “unlawfulness”. Besides, the law enforcement agencies wish to be seen to be committed to prosecuting and delivering convictions in corruption cases. To do so, they need to maintain looser definitions of the elements of the offence. This paper endorses the Constitutional Court rulings and provides additional reasons in support of their stance. The paper can be considered as a case study for other countries that may be contemplating similar legislation. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|