DINAMIKA HUKUM ACARA PIDANA DALAM PENANGANAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI: ANTARA KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN SUBSTANTIF

Abstrak

Penanganan tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia menghadapi tarik-menarik antara kepastian hukum dan keadilan substantif dalam kerangka hukum acara pidana. Di satu sisi, kepastian hukum menuntut prosedur yang tegas, sistematis, dan prediktif guna menjamin stabilitas serta perlindungan hak tersangka/terdakwa. Di sisi lain, keadilan substantif mendorong fleksibilitas prosedur agar penyimpangan kekuasaan dan kerugian negara yang kompleks dapat diungkap secara mendalam. Artikel ini menganalisis dinamika penerapan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) serta berbagai peraturan khusus seperti Undang-Undang Tipikor dan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung dalam perkara korupsi. Melalui pendekatan yuridis normatif dan perbandingan putusan, ditemukan bahwa ketegangan antara kedua nilai tersebut sering memicu ketidakpastian hukum, seperti perbedaan tafsir alat bukti, praperadilan, dan upaya hukum luar biasa. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa diperlukan pembaruan hukum acara pidana yang mengakomodasi prinsip keadilan restoratif serta penguatan mekanisme diskresi hakim secara bertanggung jawab, tanpa mengorbankan prinsip due process of law.

The handling of corruption crimes in Indonesia faces a tension between legal certainty and substantive justice within the framework of criminal procedure law. On the one hand, legal certainty demands clear, systematic, and predictable procedures to ensure stability and protect the rights of suspects and defendants. On the other hand, substantive justice calls for procedural flexibility so that complex abuses of power and state losses can be thoroughly uncovered. This article analyzes the dynamics of the application of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) as well as various special regulations such as the Anti-Corruption Law and Supreme Court Regulations in corruption cases. Through a normative legal approach and comparative analysis of court decisions, it was found that the tension between these two values often triggers legal uncertainty, such as differing interpretations of evidence, pretrial proceedings, and extraordinary legal remedies. This study concludes that an update to criminal procedure law is necessary to accommodate the principle of restorative justice and to strengthen the mechanism of responsible judicial discretion, without sacrificing the principle of due process of law.