MAKNA KERUGIAN NEGARA DALAM UU NO. 31 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI BESERTA PERUBAHANNYA UU NO. 20 TAHUN 2001 DALAM PERSPEKTIF KONSEP HUKUM H.L.A. HART DAN RONALD DWORKIN

Abstract

Abstrak

Konsep kerugian negara dalam UU 31/1999 jo. UU 20/2001 merupakan elemen sentral dalam pembuktian tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia. Namun, hingga lebih dari dua dekade penerapannya, konsep ini masih menyisakan perdebatan fundamental baik dalam teori hukum maupun praktik peradilan. Problematika muncul terkait ketidakjelasan definisi kerugian negara, dualisme kewenangan penetapannya antara BPK dan BPKP, hingga kecenderungan kriminalisasi administratif. Dalam banyak kasus, aparat penegak hukum menafsirkan frasa “dapat merugikan negara” secara luas sehingga memunculkan over-criminalization. Penelitian ini menggunakan teori hukum H.L.A. Hart melalui konsep rule of recognition, primary rules, secondary rules, dan open texture of law serta teori Ronald Dworkin melalui prinsip law as integrity, hard cases, dan rights thesis untuk menelusuri akar problematik konsep kerugian negara dalam UU Tipikor. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, dan analisis putusan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketidakpastian kerugian negara dalam UU Tipikor merupakan cerminan open texture yang tidak diimbangi rule of recognition yang jelas, sedangkan dari perspektif Dworkin, praktik pemaknaan yang terlalu luas telah mengabaikan prinsip fairness dan integritas hukum. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa kerugian negara harus dimaknai sebagai kerugian yang nyata dan pasti, ditetapkan oleh lembaga audit konstitusional, serta diterapkan secara proporsional dan humanistik sesuai prinsip moral yang inheren dalam hukum.

Kata kunci: kerugian negara, tindak pidana korupsi, H.L.A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin, rule of recognition, law as integrity.

Abstract

The concept of state financial loss in Indonesia’s anti-corruption legal regime primarily regulated under Law No. 31 of 1999 as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001 remains one of the most contested elements in the prosecution of corruption cases. Despite its central role, the law does not provide an explicit definition of state financial loss, resulting in divergent interpretations among law enforcers, auditors, and courts. Disputes persist regarding whether the element requires an actual and quantifiable loss or whether a potential loss is sufficient to meet the threshold of criminal liability. The dual authority between the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) further complicates the legal landscape, creating inconsistency in the determination and validity of state financial losses used as evidence in corruption cases. Using a normative legal research method and a philosophical approach, this study examines the meaning of state financial loss through the theoretical lens of H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin. Hart’s concepts of primary and secondary rules, rule of recognition, and open texture expose the structural weaknesses and normative ambiguities inherent in the statutory formulation of corruption offences. Meanwhile, Dworkin’s theories of law as integrity, hard cases, and the rights thesis offer a moral interpretive framework that highlights the importance of coherence, fairness, and proportionality in criminal adjudication. The findings reveal that the current interpretation and application of state financial loss often fail to satisfy the principles of legal certainty, constitutional coherence, and substantive justice. The reliance on potential losses and non-constitutional auditors contradicts both Hart’s requirement for a clear rule of recognition and Dworkin’s insistence on moral integrity in judicial reasoning. The study concludes that state financial loss must be interpreted strictly as actual, definite, and constitutionally verified loss, to prevent administrative errors from being criminalized and to ensure the legitimacy of anti-corruption enforcement within a democratic rule of law framework.

Keywords: state financial loss, corruption, H.L.A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin, rule of recognition, law as integrity, legal certainty.