DEKONSTRUKSI BLANKET STRAFBEPALINGEN PASCA-PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 123/PUU-XXIII/2025: ANTARA TATBESTANDSMÄßIGKEIT DAN WESENSCHAU

Deconstruction of The Blanket Penal Provisions Following Constitutional Court Decision No. 123/Puu-Xxiii/2025: Between Tatbestandsmäßigkeit and Wesenschau

Authors

  • Ahwan Ahwan Fakultas Hukum Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Mataram
  • Nunung Rahmania Fakultas Hukum Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Mataram

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59896/gara.v20i2.714

Keywords:

Anti-Corruption Law, Blanket Strafbepalingen, Constitutional Court, Tatbestandsmäßigkeit, Wesenschau.

Abstract

This study critically analyzes the Constitutional Court Decision Number 123/PUU-XXIII/2025, which deconstructs the formal requirement of expressis verbis confirmation in the blanket penal provisions (blanket strafbepalingen) under Article 14 of the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption (Anti-Corruption Law). The primary issues examined are the normative position of blanket strafbepalingen within the construction of anti-corruption law in Indonesia and the dogmatic implications of the Constitutional Court's decision on criminal law doctrine. Employing a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study reveals two main findings. First, the position of blanket strafbepalingen in Article 14 of the Anti-Corruption Law is philosophically parallel to the Technology Neutral Regulation (TNR) theory as an adaptive legislative technique to prevent regulatory aging (ossification). However, in Indonesian positive law, its applicability is strictly limited by a bridging article requiring a literal corruption clause within sectoral laws to uphold the principle of legal certainty (lex certa). Second, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 123/PUU-XXIII/2025, which rules that Article 14 can still be triggered as long as the act in sectoral laws "meets the elements of corruption," brings problematic implications. The Court fell into a legal simplification by merely examining the stage of tatbestandsmäßigkeit (fulfillment of formal elements) while neglecting the aspects of wesenschau (substantial nature of the offense) and the original intent of the lawmakers. Practically, this decision perpetuates the Anti-Corruption Law as an expansive ("omnibus") or draconian tool that potentially degrades the existence of sectoral criminal laws and their administrative mechanisms.

References

Ahwan. (2025). “Prinsip Regulasi Netral Teknologi: Teknik Antisipatif Terhadap Evolusi Teknologi Dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia.” PROGRESIF:Jurnal Hukum 20 (2): 1–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33019/dr6e8w52.

Amiruddin, and Zainal Asikin. (2014). Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. 1st ed. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Bohlander, Michael. (2009). Principles of German Crimminal Law. Oxford and Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing.

Carl-Friedrich Elme and Massimiliano Bienati. (2024). “Technology-Neutral vs Technology-Specific Policies in Climate Regulation: The Case for CO 2 Emission Standards.” In Master in Sustainability Management - First Annual Conference SDA-Bocconi University, Milan, 1–42. Milan: SDA-Bocconi University.

Dubber, Markus Dirk. (2005). “Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 53.

Fuady, Munir. (2018). Metode Riset Hukum Pendekatan Teori Dan Konsep. 1st ed. Depok: Rajawali Pers.

Hamzah, Andi. (2014). Pemberantasan Korupsi Melalui Hukum Pidana Nasional Dan Internasional. Revisi. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

———. (2020). Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Edisi Revi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Harašta, Jakub. (2019). “Trust by Discrimination: Technology Specific Regulation & Explainable AI.” CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2381 (December).

Hiariej, Eddy O.S. (2016). Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka.

———. (2022). “Keunggulan UU Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual.” Kompas. 2022. Keunggulan UU Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual.

Hildebrandt, Mireille, and Laura Tielemans. (2013). “Data Protection by Design and Technology Neutral Law.” Computer Law and Security Review 29 (5): 509–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.004.

Koops, Bert-Jaap. (2006). “Should ICT Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?” In Starting Points for ICT Regulation, Deconstructing Prevelent Policy One-Liners, edited by Corien Prins and Maurice Schellekens Bert-Jaap Koops, Miriam Lips, 77–108. The Hague: TMC Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-665-7_4.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2026). “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 123/PUU-XXIII/2025.”

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. (2016). Penelitian Hukum. Edisi Revi. Jakarta: Kencana.

Mathis, Bruno. (2023). “Should Crypto-Asset Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?” Blockchain and Private International Law 87. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004514850.

Reed, Chris. (2007). “Taking Sides on Technology Neutrality.” SCRIPT-Ed 4 (3): 263–84. https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.040307.263.

Thomas O. McGarity. (1992). “Some Thoughts on ‘Deossifying’ The Rulemaking Process.” Duke Law Journal 41:1385–1462.

Varga, Benedek. (2025). “The Codification of Socialist Criminal Law with Special Regard to Economic Crimes.” Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 18 (22330152): 465–82. https://doi.org/10.4467/20844131KS.25.029.22159.

Vormbaum, Thomas, and Michael Bohlander, eds. (2014). A Modern History of German Criminal Law. New York: Springer.

Wibisana, Andri Gunawan. (2024). “Kerugian Lingkungan, Kerugian Perekonomian Negara?” Kompas. 2024. https://www.kompas.id/artikel/kerugian-lingkungan-kerugian-perekonomian-negara.

Downloads

Published

25-06-2026

How to Cite

Ahwan, A., & Rahmania, N. (2026). DEKONSTRUKSI BLANKET STRAFBEPALINGEN PASCA-PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 123/PUU-XXIII/2025: ANTARA TATBESTANDSMÄßIGKEIT DAN WESENSCHAU: Deconstruction of The Blanket Penal Provisions Following Constitutional Court Decision No. 123/Puu-Xxiii/2025: Between Tatbestandsmäßigkeit and Wesenschau. Ganec Swara, 20(2), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.59896/gara.v20i2.714

Issue

Section

Articles