Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Annulment of Acquittal in Corruption Crime Case: A Study of Decision Number 1227 K/Pid.Sus/2022
Abstract
Law enforcement against corruption crimes in Indonesia is still characterized by a glaring disparity in decisions. This condition arises in a land procurement case in which the Judex Facti acquitted the defendant of the Public Prosecutor’s charges. This research aims to analyze the Supreme Court’s underlying legal considerations in annulling the Samarinda District Court’s acquittal. Additionally, this study reconstructs the unlawful element associated with the state land status and examines the validity of audit evidence relative to price appraisal. This research employs doctrinal legal research using the statute, case, and conceptual approaches. This study finds that the annulment of Decision Number 1/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN Smr by Decision Number 1227 K/Pid.Sus/2022 was based on the Judex Facti’s fundamental error in making incorrect conclusions and legal considerations that were inconsistent with the facts revealed at trial. The analysis proves that former Right of Use land that has expired automatically reverts to a state asset by operation of law. Therefore, the compensation payment to a third party constitutes a fictitious act that fulfills the unlawful element and the element of abusing authority. This research concludes that the Audit Report declaring the occurrence of state losses is more valid than the procedurally flawed price-estimation assessment method conducted by telephone. As an implication, this research recommends a paradigm shift for judges from a formalistic-legal to a material-progressive approach in deciding cases. This research also urges the formulation of measurable sentencing guidelines to minimize verdict disparities and maximize state loss recovery.
Downloads
References
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang-dasar
Behuku, J. G., Kusuma, J. I., Chasanah, N. U., Sugianto, F., & Indradewi, A. A. (2025). A The Judge’s Role in the Effectiveness of Anti-Corruption Enforcement in Indonesia: A Juridical Analysis. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(1), 351-367. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i1.464
Claudiary, A. O. (2021). Argumentasi Kasasi Penuntut Umum Judex Facti Salah Menerapkan Hukum dalam Perkara Korupsi (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 433 K/Pid.Sus/2018). Verstek, 9(2), 407-415. https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v9i2.51099
Daulay, A. F. (2025). Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases and Judicial Discretion in Indonesian Courts. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kyadiren, 6(2), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.46924/jihk.v6i2.248
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 114/PUU-X/2012 on the Review of Law Number 8 of 1981. https://tracking.mkri.id/index.php?page=web.TrackPerkara&id=114/PUU-X/2012
Decision of the District Court of Samarinda Number 1/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN Smr on Defendant: Suprianto, S.H. Bin (Alm.) Muhammad Kurdi AM. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/zaebee82ce06527a923c303933313533.html
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1227 K/Pid.Sus/2022 on Defendant: Suprianto, S.H. Bin (Alm.) Muhammad Kurdi AM. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/zaedd904668c97588137313433343034.html
Fiah, E. M., Fallo, D. F. N., & Prabowo, S. (2025). Tinjauan Yuridis Penolakan Permohonan Kasasi oleh Mahkamah Agung Terkait Putusan Bebas dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Journal of Administrative and Sosial Science, 6(2), 203-212. https://doi.org/10.55606/jass.v6i2.1981
Harefa, N. S. K., Manik, G. K., Marpaung, I. K. Y., & Batubara, S. A. (2020). Dasar Pertimbangan Hakim terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang Dilakukan oleh Pegawai Negeri Sipil (PNS): Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Medan Nomor: 73/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PN.Mdn. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 2(1), 30-42. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v2i1.68
Hartika, L., Dithisari, I., & Andriati, S. L. (2023). Urgensi Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Pidana Tambahan Uang Pengganti oleh Jaksa Eksekutor dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Binamulia Hukum, 11(2), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.37893/jbh.v11i2.297
Irwansyah. (2020). Penelitian Hukum: Pilihan Metode & Praktik Penulisan Artikel. Mirra Buana Media.
Kholik, I., Warman, E., & Harianto, D. (2022). Legal Protection of the Defendant’s Property as Evidence in the Trial Process of Corruption. Unifikasi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 9(2), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.25134/unifikasi.v9i2.6833
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1946 on the Penal Code Regulations. https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/814
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1981 Number 76, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3209). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/755
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999 Number 140, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3874). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/432
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20 of 2001 on Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2001 Number 134, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4150). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/351
Mansyur, M., Renggong, R., & Oner, B. (2024). Putusan Bebas Perkara Pidana Korupsi di Pengadilan Pidana Korupsi Makassar. Indonesian Journal of Legality of Law, 6(2), 297-301. https://doi.org/10.35965/ijlf.v6i2.4475
Pawe, T., Husen, L. O., & Muzakkir, A. K. (2025). The Paradox of a Rule of Law State: A Critical Reflection on the Dialectic between Discourse and Reality in the Eradication of Corruption in Indonesia. Sovereign: International Journal of Law, 6(1-2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.37276/sijl.v7i1-2.56
Prakosa, I. (2021). Pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung Memutus Permohonan Kasasi Penuntut Umum Berdasarkan Alasan Judex Facti Keliru Menafsirkan Peraturan Hukum dalam Perkara Korupsi. Verstek, 9(1), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v9i1.49998
Prasetyo, Y., Febriansyah, F. I., Indiantoro, A., Isnandar, A., & Agiyanto, U. (2022). Analysis of the Reasons for the Judge’s Decision Which Relieves Defendants in Corruption Cases. Jurnal Jurisprudence, 12(1), 46-70. https://doi.org/10.23917/jurisprudence.v12i1.1008
Qamar, N., & Rezah, F. S. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Doktrinal dan Non-Doktrinal. CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn). https://books.google.co.id/books?id=TAQHEAAAQBAJ
Sampara, S., & Husen, L. O. (2016). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Kretakupa Print.
Saragih, A., & Ihsan, S. (2022). The Basis for the Judge’s Consideration of Acquitting the Perpetrators of Corruption Crime. Corruptio, 3(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.25041/corruptio.v3i1.2520
Sutopo, R. B. P., & Panjaitan, H. (2025). A Juridical Demarcation: Reconstructing the Proof of Mens Rea to Differentiate Policy and Corruption by Public Officials. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(2), 765-784. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.525
Triastina, A. (2022). Kesesuaian Alasan Kasasi Terdakwa dalam Perkara Korupsi yang Dikabulkan oleh Mahkamah Agung dengan Pasal 253 Ayat 1 KUHAP. Verstek, 10(2), 386-391. https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v10i2.67690
Zuhrah, Z., Sulistiyono, A., Ridwan, R., Syamsuddin, S., & Iksan, I. (2024). Independensi Hakim dalam Berbagai Disparitas Putusan Perkara Korupsi di Mahkamah Agung. Fundamental: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 13(1), 47-70. https://doi.org/10.34304/jf.v13i1.236
Copyright (c) 2026 Raja Didit Pratama Munthe, Ahmad Ansyari Siregar, Nimrot Siahaan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
