cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Rinaldy Amrullah
Contact Email
jurnal.corruptio@fh.unila.ac.id
Phone
+6285758142309
Journal Mail Official
jurnal.corruptio@fh.unila.ac.id
Editorial Address
Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung Prof. Soemantri Brojonegoro St. No. 1, Gedong Meneng, Bandar Lampung 35145
Location
Kota bandar lampung,
Lampung
INDONESIA
Corruptio
Published by Universitas Lampung
ISSN : 27232573     EISSN : 27459276     DOI : https://doi.org/10.25041/corruptio
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
The Journal Corruptio is an international journal of anti-corruption published by the Law Faculty of Universitas Lampung as a platform for academicians, researchers, and practitioners to publish their authentic articles or reviews regarding communication and development of the criminal law, legal comparison, and interdisciplinary related to corruption. The scope of the Journal Corruptio is the result of research or conceptual studies on the criminal law consisting of law in general, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and corruption. The Journal Corruptio publishes two issues in a year, on January and July that provides open accessed journal in attempts for all published content in the journal is available for free without charged fees toward users and their institutions. The Journal Corruptio opens access directly to the completed substance based on the principle of free research availability to support significant global knowledge exchange. The Corruptio Journal is a platform for academicians, researchers, and practitioners to publish their authentic articles or reviews regarding communication and development of the criminal law, legal comparison, and interdisciplinary related to corruption. The scope of the Journal Corruptio is the result of research or conceptual studies on the criminal law consisting of law in general, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and corruption. Scope and Focus of the journal consist as follows: a. Law enforcement Law enforcement is an effort to enforce the function of law and norms in the society. Generally, law enforcement aims to act as a behavioral guidance of the society’s behaviour. In the Journal Corruptio, law enforcement discusses topics on concept of law enforcement and rehabilitation. These discussions on law enforcement are applied on corruption cases, behavioral, and philosophy in Indonesia. b. Prevention Law consist of 2 (two) natures which are prevention and repression. The scope of Journal Corruptio, leans to law’s function of preventing. Prevention means the law acts as preclusion against crimes, specifically crimes of corruption. Prevention in the Journal Corruption is executed through dissemination, socialization, and other platforms to insert values that could hinder corrupt behaviors for example, corruption, collusion, nepotism, money laundering. c. Protection Law protection defines an aegis towards the human rights of the society in order to enjoy their rights to its fullest. In the Jounal Corruptio, protection highlights protection towards witnesses in order to provide them security and convenience during their trial process of giving facts and evidential statements.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "vol 6 no 2 (2025)" : 5 Documents clear
Corruption Verdict on Embezzlement of Village Funds in the Department of John Rawls's Fairness Perspective Albri Labaka
Corruptio Vol 6 No 2 (2025)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/corruptio.v6i2.4302

Abstract

This article examines judicial authority in adjudicating village fund corruption, analyzing Decision Number 11/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN through a normative juridical approach and John Rawls’s fairness perspective. While the Panel of Judges applied Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law, the three-year sentence is disproportionate given state losses of approximately IDR 1.95 billion, the Defendant’s public office, and the lack of restitution. The ruling highlights a tension between procedural legality and substantive justice, emphasizing the need for judges to exercise social sensitivity, apply public reason, and consider the socio-structural impact on vulnerable communities. A holistic approach ensures that judicial decisions are legally valid, ethically sound, and socially responsive, reinforcing the moral authority of the courts and protecting marginalized groups.
Corruptio Legis in Indonesian Legal Politics: A Legisprudential Analytical Approach Muhamad Pelengkahu
Corruptio Vol 6 No 2 (2025)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/corruptio.v6i2.4450

Abstract

This study conceptualises Corruptio Legis as a form of structural corruption operating within Indonesia’s legislative process, where formally valid procedures conceal substantive distortions of law, justice, and constitutional democracy. Using Wintgens’ legisprudence, Ekins’ theory of legislative intention, and Tuori’s ratio–voluntas framework, the analysis identifies key patterns of distortion, including legislative subordination to party elites, transactional lawmaking, and the marginalisation of public deliberation. Case studies of the stalled Asset Confiscation Bill and the Job Creation Law illustrate how oligarchic political interests displace public reason in lawmaking. The study proposes a four-step Corruptio Legisprudential Diagnosis Formula and advocates a Legislative Impact Assessment grounded in this framework to ensure that legislation is guided by rational deliberation rather than power-based interests.
From Tax Law to Anti-Corruption Enforcement: Adapting the Una via Principle for Village Fund Corruption Cases in Indonesia Sidi Ahyar Wiraguna
Corruptio Vol 6 No 2 (2025)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/corruptio.v6i2.4513

Abstract

The una via principle, originating from European legal traditions, requires the state to choose a single enforcement mechanism administrative or criminal for the same unlawful conduct in order to avoid overlapping sanctions. In Indonesia, this principle has been formally recognized in taxation and capital market regulation, yet it remains absent in the enforcement of corruption law. This gap becomes particularly visible in cases involving village fund corruption. Empirical data from the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office between 2019 and 2023 record 1,842 cases with financial losses ranging from IDR 50 million to IDR 900 million. Despite the restoration of state losses in a significant number of cases, more than seventy percent still proceed through criminal prosecution, resulting in enforcement dualism, institutional inefficiency, and concerns regarding the proportionality of sanctions. This article argues that adapting the una via principle to corruption cases involving relatively limited losses could support a more coherent enforcement framework. Drawing on comparative experiences from the Netherlands, France, Singapore, Japan, and Malaysia, the study proposes a conditional una via model that enables prosecutors, as dominus litis, to prioritize administrative or civil recovery while maintaining criminal prosecution for more serious corruption offenses.
The Basis of Issuance and Reasons for Revocation of the Attorney General's Guideline No. 7 of 2020 Ahmad Firjatullah Farhan; Zulhidayat Zulhidayat; Hamonangan Albariansyah
Corruptio Vol 6 No 2 (2025)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/corruptio.v6i2.4688

Abstract

This study examines two fundamental issues concerning the Attorney General’s Guideline No. 7 of 2020, which regulates the granting of permission for the summoning, examination, search, arrest, and detention of prosecutors suspected of committing criminal acts. The primary issues analyzed are: (1) the juridical and philosophical foundations underlying the issuance of the Guideline, and (2) the legal basis and substantive reasons for its subsequent revocation. This research employs a normative legal research method, using statutory, conceptual, and philosophical approaches by analyzing laws and regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant scholarly opinions. Juridically, the issuance of the Guideline was grounded in Article 8 paragraph (5) of Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia, which requires the Attorney General’s authorization for law enforcement actions against prosecutors. This provision aims to prevent arbitrary criminalization and protect prosecutorial independence. Philosophically, the Guideline was intended to provide procedural legal protection for prosecutors in their role as dominus litis, enabling them to perform their duties independently and free from intimidation while preserving the dignity of the prosecutorial profession. However, the Guideline was revoked shortly after its enactment through the Decree of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia Number 163 of 2020 due to political, legal, and sociological considerations, particularly public concerns regarding equality before the law and the potential for prosecutorial impunity. This study concludes that the issuance and revocation of the Guideline reflect an inherent tension between the need for institutional protection of prosecutors and public demands for transparency, accountability, and equality before the law within Indonesia’s criminal justice system.
Illegal Mining and Penal Law Enforcement in Lampung, Indonesia: Study for Environmental Justice and Governance Dzaky Muhammad Haris
Corruptio Vol 6 No 2 (2025)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/corruptio.v6i2.4929

Abstract

This article critically examines the effectiveness of penal law enforcement against illegal mining in Lampung Province, Indonesia, through a normative–empirical approach. Lampung is selected as the research locus because its illegal mining dynamics differ fundamentally from those of Indonesia’s major mining regions such as Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua. In contrast to regions where mining is embedded in formal development frameworks and dominated by large-scale corporate actors, illegal mining in Lampung is predominantly informal, small-scale, and community-based, yet generates significant environmental degradation. This distinctive configuration reveals regulatory challenges that are insufficiently addressed by Indonesia’s nationally uniform mining and penal policies. Applying criminal policy framework formulation, application, and execution, this study identifies structural weaknesses that manifest acutely in Lampung. The formulation stage produces legal uncertainty through excessive centralization authority, decriminalization of abusive official conduct, and regulatory norms that disproportionately criminalize local communities. These problems are intensified by limited local regulatory discretion, creating a disjunction between centralized legal norms and local socio-ecological realities. The application law enforcement exhibits a persistent gap between actual and recorded illegal mining activities, compounded by fragmented inter-agency coordination. The execution of judicial sanctions remain largely symbolic due to ambiguous legal mechanisms governing fines, asset forfeiture, and environmental restoration. The article advances the novel argument that Indonesia’s penal response to illegal mining suffers not merely from weak enforcement, but from a structural mismatch between centralized criminal regulation and region-specific mining practices. This study contributes to socio-legal and environmental law scholarship by demonstrating the limitations of uniform penal frameworks and emphasizing the need for region-sensitive regulatory and enforcement models oriented toward substantive justice and ecological protection.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2025 2025


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 7 No 1 (2026) Vol 6 No 2 (2025) Vol 6 No 1 (2025) Vol 5 No 2 (2024) Vol 5 No 1 (2024) Vol 4 No 2 (2023): Issue In progress (August 2023) Vol 4 No 2 (2023) Vol 4 No 1 (2023) Vol 3 No 2 (2022) Vol 3 No 1 (2022) Vol 2 No 2 (2021) Vol 2 No 1 (2021) Vol 1 No 2 (2020) Vol 1 No 1 (2020) More Issue