Rehabilitation of Corruption Convicts: A Modern Sentencing Theory Perspective

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Apr 20, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): JURNAL ILMU HUKUM PRIMA

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Ghani Fauzan Gunawan
a:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:20:"Universitas Pasundan";}
Rika Kurniasari Abdulgani
Universitas Pasundan

Abstract

This study examines the application of rehabilitation for individuals convicted of corruption offenses through the lens of modern sentencing theory, and proposes normative criteria for its implementation within Indonesian positive law. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches, legal materials were analyzed qualitatively. The findings reveal that rehabilitation in Indonesian law rests on a strong constitutional foundation as an attributed power of the President, and has progressively evolved into an instrument for protecting individual rights within the criminal justice system. However, the existing legal framework remains incomplete, as it does not explicitly accommodate rehabilitation for convicts whose sentences carry permanent legal force—particularly in corruption cases that intersect with business decision-making. From a modern sentencing theory perspective, rehabilitation functions as a corrective mechanism to shield individuals from potential state error, provided it does not compromise the public interest in eradicating corruption. Accordingly, five strict normative criteria are proposed for its application: (1) demonstrable error in the criminal conviction, (2) a lawful basis of authority, (3) relevance to the business judgment rule, (4) adherence to the principle of proportionality, and (5) assurance that no impunity is created. Rehabilitation, under these conditions, should be viewed not as a weakening of criminal law, but as an integral corrective mechanism within the rule of law that sustains a balance among legal certainty, justice, and social utility.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Gunawan, G. F., & Abdulgani, R. K. (2026). Rehabilitation of Corruption Convicts: A Modern Sentencing Theory Perspective. Ilmu Hukum Prima (IHP), 9(1), 66–80. Retrieved from https://jurnal.unprimdn.ac.id/index.php/IHP/article/view/8289

References

  1. Books
  2. Ancel, M. (1965). Social Defence: A Modern Approach to Criminal Problems. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  3. Arief, B. N. (1994). Kebijakan Legislatif dalam Penanggulangan Kejahatan dengan Pidana Penjara. Badan Penerbit UNDIP.
  4. Arief, B. N. (2008). Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana. Kencana.
  5. Arief, B. N. (2011). Kebijakan Hukum Pidana. Kencana.
  6. Arief, B. N. (2016). Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana. Kencana.
  7. Arief, B. N. (2022). Perkembangan Sistem Pemidanaan di Indonesia. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
  8. Asshiddiqie, J. (2006). Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Konstitusi Press.
  9. Atmasasmita, R. (2011). Sistem Peradilan Pidana Kontemporer. Kencana Prenada Media Group.
  10. Dicey, A. V. (1959). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Macmillan.
  11. Hadjon, P. M. (1994). Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia. Fakultas Hukum Universitas Airlangga.
  12. Hadjon, P. M. (2011). Kewenangan Pemerintahan dalam Negara Hukum. Genta Press.
  13. Hiariej, E. O. S. (2014). Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana. Cahaya Atma Pustaka.
  14. Ibrahim, J., & Efendi, J. (2016). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Normatif dan Empiris. Prenadamedia Group.
  15. Logemann, J. H. A. (1941). Over de Theorie van een Stellig Staatsrecht. Leiden: N.V. Uitg. Mij. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.
  16. Manan, B. (2004). Teori dan Politik Konstitusi. FH UII Press.
  17. Moleong, L. J. (2018). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Simbiosa Rekatama Media.
  18. Muladi. (1995). Kapita Selekta Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
  19. Muladi, & Arief, B. N. (2010). Teori-Teori dan Kebijakan Pidana. Alumni.
  20. Nurbani, H. S., & Erlies, S. (2018). Penerapan Teori Hukum pada Penelitian Tesis dan Disertasi. PT Raja Grafindo.
  21. Rahardjo, S. (2009). Hukum Progresif. Kompas.
  22. Santoso, T. (2023). Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Rajawali Pers.
  23. Stahl, J. (2003). Rechts und Staatslehre auf der Grundlage christlicher Weltanschauung. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
  24. Sudarto. (1986). Hukum dan Hukum Pidana. Alumni.
  25. Legislation
  26. Republic of Indonesia. (1945). Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
  27. Republic of Indonesia. (1981). Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP).
  28. Republic of Indonesia. (2001). Law No. 20 of 2001 on Amendment to Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication.
  29. Republic of Indonesia. (2007). Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies.
  30. Republic of Indonesia. (2023). Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code.
  31. Republic of Indonesia. (2025). Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code.
  32. Journal Articles and Other Sources
  33. Anisa, N., & Putro, K. (2025). Nilai-nilai hak asasi manusia dalam ideologi Pancasila. Jurnal Ilmiah Mimbar Demokrasi, 24(2), 532–537. https://doi.org/10.21009/jimd.v24i2.52086
  34. Anugrah Prasetya, D., Sembiring, E., & Santia. (2024). Menegakkan HAM dan mempertahankan nilai Pancasila dalam masyarakat. Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia, 1(3).
  35. Daeng, Y., Putri, D., Firmansyah, B. S., & Rahmat, K. (2024). Keterbatasan aparat penegak hukum sebagai hambatan dalam penegakan hukum di Indonesia. MOTEKAR: Jurnal Multidisiplin Teknologi dan Arsitektur, 2(2).
  36. Eva. (2025, November 25). Prabowo beri rehabilitasi ke eks Dirut ASDP Ira Puspadewi. Detik News. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-8228216/
  37. Irianto, S. (2017). Metode penelitian kualitatif dalam metodologi penelitian ilmu hukum. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 32(2).
  38. Monica, T. (2024). Pelanggaran asas business judgment rule yang berakibat pada pertanggungjawaban pidana direksi PT FKS Food Sejahtera. Hukum Responsif, 15(1). http://jurnal.ugj.ac.id/index.php/Responsif
  39. Panjaitan, R., Anggusti, M., & Nababan, R. (2021). Penerapan prinsip business judgment rule terhadap direksi yang melakukan kebijakan yang merugikan perusahaan. Jurnal Hukum PATIK, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.51622/patik.v10i1.217
  40. Sanyoto, A. A. (2025). The business judgment rule in the context of directors' liability. Indonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review. https://ijler.umsida.ac.id/index.php/ijler/article/view/1387
  41. Setiawati, A., & Vitrana, M. (2025). Doktrin business judgment rule dalam UU BUMN: Batas tanggung jawab direksi dalam tindak pidana korupsi. Jurnal Rechtens, 14(1).
  42. Syaflizar, L. (2023). Business judgment rule: Sebuah prinsip tanggung jawab direksi atas kerugian dalam pengelolaan BUMN (Persero). Privat Law, 11.
  43. Tetuko, W., & Adam, R. (2022). Penerapan doktrin business judgment rule terhadap direksi anak perusahaan BUMN (Studi kasus: Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020). Jurnal Hukum Adigama, 5(2).
  44. Wijayati, Rr., Berutu, C., & Sitohang, M. (2025). Penerapan business judgment rule dalam tanggung jawab direksi badan usaha milik negara. Jurnal Hukum To-Ra, 11(2).
  45. Yusuf, M., Saragih, G., Setiawan, F., Sitompul, H., & Berson, H. (2025). Analisis faktor penghambat penegakan hukum pidana di Indonesia dalam perspektif teori Lawrence Friedman. Advokasi, 13(2).