<![CDATA[In the context of law enforcement, judges are often confronted with two options for article 2 and article 3 of Law No.31 of 1999 jo. Law no. 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption. in that provision which of course depends on the criminal acts that occur and the facts revealed in the hearing. Article 2 is broader than Article 3 in the effort to ensnare the perpetrators of corruption. It is this option space that potentially creates legal uncertainty. Moreover, in the elucidation of Article 2 it is said that although the criminal act of corruption is a formal offense and material but social norms are also used as a basis even though it is not regulated in legislation. Even the size to ensnare the offender is enough with the fulfillment of the elements of the deed done, not on the consequences. If legal uncertainty becomes a problem in the law enforcement process to combat corruption then of course such a reality would hurt human rights values.]]>
Copyrights © 2017
