DILEMA AKSIOLOGIS PENYIDIKAN DALAM TURBULENSI POLITIK-HUKUM: REKONSTRUKSI HUKUM PROGRESIF BERBASIS MAZHAB HUKUM ALAM DAN JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS TERHADAP PENEGAKAN HUKUM PIDANA KHUSUS ELITE NEGARA

Abstrak

Penyidikan kejahatan ekonomi dan kebijakan yang melibatkan elite negara di Indonesia berhadapan dengan dilema aksiologis yang mendalam: penyidik harus menyeimbangkan instruksi hierarkis untuk melokalisasi perkara demi stabilitas politik-ekonomi dengan tuntutan keadilan substantif masyarakat yang dirugikan korupsi sistemik. Kajian ini bertujuan (i) mengkaji bagaimana mazhab hukum alam dan justice as fairness Rawls memaknai dilema tersebut, (ii) memetakan dampak turbulensi politik-hukum—judicial corruption, counter-attack oligarki, dan capture legislasi—terhadap independensi penyidikan, serta (iii) merekonstruksi model penyidikan progresif yang relevan bagi penegakan hukum pidana khusus terhadap elite negara. Penelitian menggunakan metode hukum normatif berorientasi kritis-multidisipliner dengan lima pendekatan: perundang-undangan, konseptual, kasus, historis, dan filsafat hukum. Pembahasan mensintesiskan empat mazhab—hukum alam, hukum progresif, sosiologi hukum, dan justice as fairness—dan membandingkannya dengan tiga model kelembagaan: Serious Fraud Office (Inggris), Økokrim (Norwegia), dan satgas Lava Jato (Brasil). Kajian mengajukan Model Penyidikan Rekonstruktif-Progresif (MPRP) yang bertumpu pada empat pilar filosofis dan lima fase operasional, disertai prasyarat reformasi kelembagaan: perlindungan penyidik, kapasitas interdisipliner, dan pengawasan masyarakat sipil. Model ini mengalihkan orientasi penyidikan dari kepatuhan prosedural ke keadilan substantif, pemulihan korban, dan perbaikan kebijakan.

The investigation of elite-driven economic and policy crimes in Indonesia confronts a deep axiological dilemma: investigators must reconcile hierarchical orders demanding case localisation for the sake of politico-economic stability with the substantive justice claimed by citizens harmed by systemic corruption. This study aims to (i) examine how natural law and Rawlsian justice as fairness frame that dilemma, (ii) map how politico-legal turbulence—judicial corruption, oligarchic counter-attacks, and legislative capture—erodes investigative independence, and (iii) reconstruct a progressive investigative model fit for special criminal enforcement against state elites. The research employs doctrinal legal research enriched by a critical, multidisciplinary epistemology, integrating statutory, conceptual, case-pattern, historical, and legal-philosophical approaches. The discussion synthesises four schools—natural law, progressive law, sociological jurisprudence, and Rawlsian justice—and reads them against comparative institutional models (UK Serious Fraud Office, Norway's Økokrim, and Brazil's Lava Jato task force). The study proposes a Progressive-Reconstructive Investigation Model (MPRP) anchored in four philosophical pillars and operationalised through five interlinked phases, complemented by institutional reforms covering investigator protection, interdisciplinary capacity, and civil-society oversight. The model recasts investigation from procedural compliance toward substantive justice, victim restoration, and policy repair, offering a normative and operational pathway for the Indonesian National Police to confront elite crime while withstanding politico-legal turbulence.