Rethinking the Enforcement of Gratification Offenses in Indonesia: Legal Elements, Criminal Liability, and the Authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission

Chairul Huda (Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta)

Kosmik Hukum
Vol. 24 No. 3 (2024)

The regulation of gratification as a corruption offense in Indonesia remains controversial, particularly in determining the boundary between legitimate social gifts and gratification that constitutes a criminal offense. Although Article 12B of Law Number 20 of 2001 provides a specific legal framework for gratification, its application raises questions concerning the core elements (*bestanddeel*) of the offense, the objective and subjective conditions of criminal liability, and the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in assessing gratification. This study aims to examine the legal construction and enforcement of gratification offenses in Indonesia by analyzing the constituent elements of the offense, the objective and subjective conditions that must be fulfilled, and the limits of KPK authority in determining the legal character of gratification. This study employs a normative juridical method using a statutory, conceptual, and case-based approach. The analysis demonstrates that the criminalization of gratification cannot be based solely on the existence or receipt of a gift by a public official, but must be assessed through the fulfillment of the statutory elements and its substantive relationship with the recipient's official position and obligations. The study further argues that the distinction between legitimate social gifts and criminal gratification requires a contextual and proportionate interpretation that considers the purpose, circumstances, relationship between the parties, and potential influence on official duties. Moreover, KPK's preventive and administrative authority concerning gratification must remain within the limits prescribed by law and must not substitute judicial determination of criminal liability. This study concludes that a clearer and more proportionate legal construction is necessary to ensure that gratification enforcement effectively prevents corruption while simultaneously upholding legality, legal certainty, proportionality, and substantive justice.