Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Majalah Hukum Nasional Daengku: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Innovation Focus Journal Law Review
Andi Wahyu Wibisana
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pancasila
Humanities Education Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Other

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
PENGUATAN PERATURAN TENTANG KOMITE AUDIT GUNA MENCEGAH KERUGIAN KEUANGAN NEGARA DI BUMN Andi Wahyu Wibisana
Majalah Hukum Nasional Vol. 50 No. 1 (2020): Majalah Hukum Nasional Volume 50 Nomor 1 Tahun 2020
Publisher : Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional Kementerian Hukum dan HAM RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (795.43 KB) | DOI: 10.33331/mhn.v50i1.55

Abstract

Seharusnya, korupsi di BUMN tidak terjadi jika sistem pengawasan berjalan dengan baik dan optimal. Dewan komisaris atau dewan pengawas merupakan organ perusahaan BUMN yang bertanggung jawab untuk melakukan pengawas dengan dibantu oleh komite audit. Oleh karena itu, komite audit dapat menjadi kekuatan tumpuan pencegahan korupsi di BUMN. Namun, peraturan yang mengatur komite audit memiliki beberapa kelemahan. Untuk itu, perlu penguatan hukum bagi komite audit agar perannya dapat lebih optimal dalam pencegahan korupsi. Dalam penelitian ini, rumusan masalah adalah pertama, apa kelemahan peraturan tentang komite audit dan kedua, bagaimana perbaikan peraturan komite audit guna bisa mencegah kerugian keuangan negara di BUMN. Tipologi penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif, yaitu penelitian terhadap norma hukum sebagai obyeknya. Norma hukum yang menjadi obyek penelitian adalah norma hukum yang mengatur tentang komite audit. Metode analisis yang digunakan adalah analisis kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan, peraturan yang mengatur komite audit memiliki kelemahan yang terletak pada tiga kelemahan utama, yaitu peran dan tanggungjawab komite audit, operasional komite audit, dan renumerasi komite audit. Dalam rangka penguatan peran komite audit untuk mencegah terjadinya kerugian keuangan negara di BUMN, maka kelemahan peraturan tersebut harus diperbaiki.
REPOSITIONING THE ROLE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS AS DOMINUS LITIS IN CORRUPTION CASES: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW IN GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT: Raden Nanda Setiawan; Reda Manthovani; Agus Surono; Andi Wahyu Wibisana
Focus Journal : Law Review Vol 5 No 2 (2025): Focus Journal Law Review Vol. 5 No. 2
Publisher : Universitas Bali Dwipa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62795/fjl.v5i2.304

Abstract

This study aims to examine the urgency and potential of applying the Economic Analysis of Law Principle by the State Attorney of Indonesia in its capacity as Dominus Litis in handling corruption cases, in this case in the Government Procurement sector. This study aims to determine the policy related to the authority of the State Attorney as Dominus Litis in handling corruption cases in government procurement. This research is a normative legal study, as well as a case approach using illustrations of corruption cases related to government procurement of goods and services. This approach aims to build the author's legal argument through a review of cases related to the issues to be examined in this paper. Therefore, this research uses a descriptive approach in the form of prescriptive research. The results of this study are the existing conditions of the role of the Public Prosecutor as Dominus Litis to be applied in handling corruption cases in government procurement of goods and services, because the Public Prosecutor has been ineffective in considering the economic value of a prosecution policy. The repositioning of the role of the Public Prosecutor is necessary so that they do not only focus on formal and material evidence, but also consider the social and economic costs. The implications of the Economic Analysis of Law approach reveal that efforts to recover state losses and long-term prevention are more important than current criminalization.  
Legal Protection for Directors of State-Owned Enterprises Against Corruption Criminal Liability in Corporate Action Decisions Under the Business Judgment Rule Principle Andi Wahyu Wibisana; Maslihati Nur Hidayati
Daengku: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Innovation Vol. 6 No. 3 (2026)
Publisher : PT Mattawang Mediatama Solution

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35877/454RI.daengku5034

Abstract

This study examines the adequacy of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) as a legal protection mechanism for directors of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) against corruption criminal liability arising from corporate action decisions. The issue is significant because SOE directors in Indonesia often face criminal prosecution when high-value business decisions result in financial losses, particularly in transactions involving acquisitions, mergers, divestments, or restructuring. Although Law Number 1 of 2025 has formally codified the BJR through Article 9F, its effectiveness remains uncertain due to the continuing tension between corporate law, state finance doctrine, and anti-corruption enforcement. This research employs normative or doctrinal legal research by analysing statutes, court decisions, legal doctrines, and relevant scholarly literature. The study uses statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, supported by grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation. The findings show that Article 9F provides only qualified protection, not absolute immunity, because directors must prove the absence of fault or negligence, good faith and prudence, no conflict of interest, and efforts to prevent losses. However, the protection remains inadequate in practice. The provision still contains multi-interpretable terms, while the legal status of SOE assets and the public-law position of SOE directors remain contested, especially after the deletion of Article 9G by Law Number 16 of 2025. Law enforcement institutions also tend to begin from the premise of state financial loss rather than first assessing whether the decision satisfies the BJR threshold. Consequently, the BJR functions as preventive protection only de jure, but often becomes merely repressive protection in court proceedings. This study contributes to doctrinal scholarship by showing that codification alone cannot ensure legal certainty. It recommends binding judicial guidance and mandatory independent legal audits for corporate actions to operationalise the BJR as a predictable preventive safeguard.
Co-Authors Agus Surono Maslihati Nur Hidayati Raden Nanda Setiawan Reda Manthovani