PERBEDAAN PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DAN DISSENTING OPINION DALAM PENENTUAN UANG PENGGANTI PADA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

Abstract

This study examines the differences in judicial reasoning between the majority judges and the dissenting judge in determining the amount of restitution (uang pengganti) in the Surya Darmadi corruption case, as decided in Supreme Court Decision Number 4950 K/Pid.Sus/2023. The research is a normative legal study employing statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. It analyzes how the majority bench limited restitution to assets proven to have been obtained or enjoyed by the defendant under Article 18(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Law, while the dissenting judge favored a broader asset-tracing approach rooted in the concept of asset recovery. The findings show that the majority's interpretation reflects formal legal certainty but leaves a substantial gap between the state's actual economic losses and the amount of restitution actually recoverable, since roughly Rp39 trillion in previously recognized state economic losses was excluded from the final and binding decision. The study concludes that although the dissenting opinion does not diminish the binding force of a majority decision, it exposes unresolved tension between legal certainty and optimal state-loss recovery, and recommends clearer statutory guidance linking Articles 2, 3, and 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law.