AUGUST 2012
Contributor: Pratiwi Beguna Halim - ALSA LC Universitas Sriwijaya
“Korupsi bukanlah tanda bahwa Negara kuat dan serakah.
Korupsi adalah sebuah privatisasi– tapi yang selingkuh. Kekuasaan
sebagai amanat publik telah diperdagangkan sebagai milik pribadi, dan
akibatnya ia hanya merepotkan, tapi tanpa kewibawaan.”
Corruption is a product of the attitudes of the community groups that
use money as a standard of the truth and the absolute powers. As a
result, the corruptor become rich and corrupt politicians that surplus
money can go into the ruling elite and highly respected. They will also
occupy a high social status in the eyes of society.
Corruption has been a long time, since the days of ancient Egypt,
Babylon, and Rome through the Middle Ages to the present. Corruption
occurs in many countries, not least in developed countries though. In
the United States themselves, there are already so advanced corruption
practices. Conversely, in a primitive society where social bonds are
very strong and effective social control, corruption is relatively rare.
But with the development of economic and political sectors as well as
the more advanced development efforts with the opening of the new
natural resources, the stronger urges the individuals, especially among
employees for corruption and fraud attempts. Corruption starts with the
urgency of development efforts is desired, while the slow bureaucratic
relative process, so that any person or entity wanting a quick shortcut
to provide the rewards by giving kickbacks (bribes).
This practice will take place continuously throughout the lack of
control of the government and society, so that the resulting class of
employees that include newly rich person who enrich themselves (material
ambitions). In order to achieve national development objectives, then
inevitably that corruption must be eradicated as it happened recently,
which was sticking out corruption in the community is how an honour
governor of the Police Academy to be a suspect in a corruption Sim’s
simulator that is worth tens of billions of rupiahs, Djoko Susilo. A
fantastic figure to be distributed to the beggar who was tipped his hand
to dozens of people to survive. KPK investigators ensnare Djoko with
second and third clauses of Law No. 31/1999 on the Eradication of
Corruption because of misuse of authority to enrich themselves.
How embarrassing! One word that might occur in our minds. How can an
educated and respectable person injure the trust. we need to look into
another country, china, who did not hesitate to reduce the number of
corruption with the penalty kill such as poisonous snakes in seconds
turn off the joints. With the method of proof reversed, although looks
complicated at the beginning but the end of the result makes clucking.
Does not the statue Number 31 / 1999 jo No. 20 of 2001 made clear that
corruption is a criminal offense exceptional (extraordinary crime) so
that necessary actions are exceptional (extraordinary measures) ?
Of the things that examined backward. There is an idea of what kind
of proof of corruption corresponding inverse is Reversed Burden of Balanced Probability of Principles of
Oliver Stolpe. The essence of this theory emphasizes the balances
between protection proportionately of individual liberty on the one
hand, and deprivation of the rights of the individual ownership of his
property that allegedly came from corruption on the other. In this
context, the position of human rights perpetrators placed in the highest
using the theory of Highest Probability Principles Balanced who
continue to use System of Proof under the Act Negatively or by the
principle beyond reasonable doubt. Then at the same time on one
particular side of the reverse burden of proof can be carried out on
assets used for corruption theory of Lower Probability of Principles.
In practice, the application of this theory in the criminal act of
corruption have been made by the Hong Kong High Court in a case between
the Attorney General Of Hong Kong v Lee Kwang Kut and the Case of the
Attorney General of Hong Kong v Hui Kin Hong and the Supreme Court of
India. However, the ban means for establishing the reverse is only valid
and applicable in the case of criminal prosecution (including
corruption), but does not apply in civil or mechanisms for establishing
of non-criminal proceeding. In this connection there is no ban on to use
of the mechanism of reversed burden of proof in cases of property
derived from criminal acts of corruption (assets from corruption).
The use of the mechanism of reversed burden of proof in the case of a
person ownership of property that allegedly came from the corruption or
money laundering is intended to put a person in its original state
before the property in question has meant to which the question must be
able to prove the origin of the acquired assets. Now, it is up to the
legislative policy to select to choose the best way for us, Indonesia.
