RATIO DECIDENDI HAKIM DALAM PEMBUKTIAN TINDAKPIDANA SUAP PENYELENGGARA NEGARA (STUDI PUTUSAN NO. 103/PID.SUS-TPK/2024/PN BDG)

Abstract

Bribery involving state officials undermines the integrity of public administration and erodes public trust in state institutions. Proving bribery requires courts not merely to establish the existence of a gift or promise, but also to demonstrate its connection to the recipient's office and its conflict with official duties. This article analyzes the ratio decidendi of the panel of judges in proving the elements of bribery against a state official in Decision Number 103/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PN Bdg and examines the conformity of the judges' legal reasoning with Article 5 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 5 paragraph (1) letter b of Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption. Using normative legal research with statute, conceptual, and case approaches, the study finds that the judges constructed their reasoning through a systematic assessment of witness testimony, the defendant's statement, documentary evidence, and physical evidence, establishing that the defendant, as a state official, received gifts connected to his office in a manner contrary to his official duties. This reasoning largely conforms to Article 5 paragraph (2) jo. Article 5 paragraph (1) letter b and to the negative statutory system of proof under Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code, although the elaboration of the specific duty violated could be strengthened further.