Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya, Esmi Warassih Puji Rahayu, Abdul Jalil,
M.Syamsudin, M.Adil Maulana, Bintang Ade Wirawan
Abstract
This research intended to comprehend, reveal and explore the legal culture of the judge in law enforcement of corruption criminal action in the court. The case studied comprises of: (1) why there is any difference in judge’s legal culture in public court and tipikor court of which causes the different decision to the similar case? (2) How is the conduction of non-legal factors such as economy and politic in sentencing a case? (3) How is the reconstruction of the judge’s legal culture in pronouncing a verdict of which can actualize the fairness and functionality to the society. The data was sourced from primary and secondary data, by analysis dialectic hermeneutic in the rank of method, critique and philosophy. The data validation used source triangulation. The result of this research shows there are some supporting and impeding factors in process of legal enforcement in both institutions. The factors comprises of institutional support in the process of investigation and pursuit, composition of judge’s council, professionalism of apparatus and working ethos, as well as the support of given verifying material. The process of enforcement of corruption case in the court is not merely determined by the movement or orientation of value in enforcing law by the judge from the ideal values of the law into the subjective values of the judge, the indication of corruption case becomes the commodity source of the judge for gaining political and economical profit. Progressive law can be presented to be the basic of reconstruction of judge’s legal culture in overwhelming the corruption case. It is based on the objective fact wherein the values of old legal culture of which has been institutionalized in legal institution and held strongly by the judge needs to be enlightened for completing the more complex legal problem. The old cultural values needs to be renewed and substituted by the news values of which is more appropriate and suitable to the development of legal knowledge paradigm for solving up the legal problem fairly, advantageously, and protect the society.
Keyword: judge’s legal culture, law enforcement, judge’s decision in corruption criminal act
Problem Background
The performance of the court, in particularly the judge, in legal enforcement of corruption criminal action still shows the dissatisfying achievement. Based on the result of monitoring of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) towards the court decisions on corruption in the environment of Public Court since 2005 – 2008, showed the significant increase towards the innocent verdict (freedom) to the accused of corruption case. In 2005 there was 22,22% of 243 defendants of which were pronounced as innocent. In 2006 it increased to 31,40% from 361 defendants of which were pronounced as innocent. In 2007 it increase to 56,84% of 373 defendants of which were pronounced as innocent and lastly in 2008 it increased to 62,38% from 444 defendants of which was pronounced as innocent. It means there was significant increased towards the innocent verdict of which is sentenced by the judge. During 2005 to 2008 averagely the innocent verdict annually increased by 13,38%.
In the other side from the decision of judge of which pronounced that the defendant is guilty, in fact the punishment is relatively light. During 2005-2008 the average of imprisonment verdict of which pronounced by Public Court was 8,82 months in prison. Following the Luthan’s classification of criminal punishment, this verdict is classified as lightest. Even in 2008, Public Court has pronounced the trial punishment towards 10 defendants of corruption (2,25%).
The condition of corruption management by Public Court is reservedly compared to the management of corruption case by Tipikor Court in particularly in the first rank. Since the founding in 2004 up to now (2008) the judges in Tipikor Court in the investigation of the case in first rank had never pronounced innocent sentence towards the defendant of corruption. The Tipikor Court also didn’t comprehend on the trial verdict or verdict under 1 (one) month of imprisonment. Tipikor Court pronounced verdict of imprisonment averagely 50,90 months of imprisonment or 4,24 years imprisonment.
Based on the research of Judicial Commission of Republic of Indonesia, the judge decision mostly contains the problem faced by the judge during construct any verdict, either those which is relating to the capability in technical matter of pronouncing a verdict, capability in compiling the considering principles used, the capability on interpretation of legal facts, the capability to construct the law, the sensitiveness based on the theory or philosophy used, personal morality, as well as in finally in the product of verdict of which has not reflected any social fairness. Shortly, the judge verdict still contains any problems of which needs to look for any solution from the legal science in particularly the researcher will review on the judge’s legal culture aspect.
Based on the background, it seems that judge’s legal culture in Public Court is different to the judge’s legal culture in Tipikor Court. Thus, the research strived to review on aspect of judge’s legal culture, i.e. conviction, attitude and personal (individual) value principle of the judge. The culture of the judge is related to social context wherein the judge conducts his profession. In the process of pronouncing verdict, the judge works based on the judge’s conviction or moral activity not merely caused by it is bound to the regulations. Such was the opinion of a judge, Brandeis Foabunte.
Problem Formulation
The problem formulation of this research comprises of: (1) why there happened difference on judge’s legal culture in public court and tipikor court of which causes the difference verdict in similar case? (2) How is the operation of non-legal factors such as economy and politic in pronouncing a case?; and (3) How is the reconstruction of the judge’s legal culture in pronouncing a verdict of which can actualize the fairness and functionality to the society?
Theoretical Ground
Concept of Legal Culture and Judge’s Legal Culture
Daniel S. Lev in his writing entitled Judicial Institutions and Legal Culture in Indonesia explains on legal system and legal culture. According to Lev, legal system emphasizes on the procedure however it does not explain on how actually these persons finish their problem in their daily life. Meanwhile legal culture is detailed into “procedural legal values” and “substantive legal values”. Procedural legal values concerns on the social regulation and management of conflict. Meanwhile, substantive component of legal culture comprises of the fundamental assumptions concerning on distribution or the usage of sources in society, in particularly concerning on what is fair or not according to the society, et cetera. Legal culture is the important element for comprehending the difference existing between one legal system to other.
In the more extensive comprehension, Lawrence M. Friedman includes the component of legal culture as internal part of a legal system. Friedman differentiates the elements of systems into 3 (three) kinds, i.e.: (1) secondary; (2) substance; (3) culture. The component of “structure” is the institution created by legal system by various function in supporting the conduction of legal system. The component of “substance” is the outer of legal system. It includes the norms of which is actualized as regulations. Meanwhile the culture is values and attitudes of which are the bounder of the system, and also determines the system site in the middle of state culture as thoroughly. Concerning on this matter Friedman argued, that Legal system in actual operation is a complex organism in which structure, substance, and culture interact.
Friedman reviews that law is not appropriate for only discuss from structural and substantive perspectives, however it should also be reviewed from the field of elements of demands of which come from interest of individual and group in society during they face to legal institution. These interest and demands are the social forces reflected in the attitude and values given in society. The elements of social forces are also mentioned by Friedman as legal culture.
It is explained by Rahardjo these demands come from the society or the users of legal service and wish for a solution or selection of resolution procedure from the alternative of solution. This selection will be based on the influence of factors of individual orientation, perspective, feeling, attitude and behavior to the greatness of force influence of interest, idea, attitude, willingness, wise, and the opinion of person on law. If we selected the court, this mater is caused by those who concerns has positive perspective on the court and influenced by forcing factors.
The concept of legal culture can be differentiated into internal and external legal culture. Internal legal culture is a legal culture of a member of society who conduct the legal tasks in particularly, such as police, attorney, advocate and judge in conducting their tasks concerning on legal case. Meanwhile the external legal culture is a social legal culture in general, i.e. the attitude and social comprehension towards legal determinations validated by them in generally.
By referring to the elements given in legal cultural concept aforementioned above, of which comprises of the values and attitudes and also the differentiating of internal and external legal culture, thus it can be formulated or constructed a concept on judge legal culture in pronouncing a case. The judge’s legal culture is a set of values, conviction, idea, attitude and perspective owned by the judge in the process of pronouncing a case submitted to him for resolute in the court. The judge in sentencing a case submitted to him is not related to the set of values of which is contained and convicted its truth, of which exist in the consideration of the judge of which also influences the behavior and attitudes for determining whether someone (the defendant/accused) and determining the sanction of which appropriately to decided if he is pronounced as guilty. The selection towards these values also very determines the quality of the judge’s decision of which is considered as right, fair and advantageous. The values, attitudes and the conviction of the judge will determine the decision made whether it will set free or pronounce a heavy or light punishment.
The Factors Influencing in Law Enforcement
In principally the law contains abstract idea or concepts. Although it is abstract, however it is established for implemented in their daily social life. Thus, it needs an activity for actualize the ideas into society. The set of activity in order to actualize the ideas into fact is a process of legal enforcement.
According to Robert B. Seidman that the conduction of law is always concerns to the social, cultural, economical, political forces, et cetera. All of social forces always participate to work in every effort for making function of the valid regulations, the implementation of sanction and in all of activities of its executive institutions. Thus the role conducted by the institution and legal regulations is a result of the operation of various kinds of factors. The existence of social forces in the operation of this law is described by Seidman as follow.
Based on the Chamblis and Seidman’s scheme, it can be explained that the role of social activity begun from the step of regulations establishment, its implementation and to the role hoped. Consciously or unconsciously the social force has been operated in the step of regulations. The social forces will always strive to enter and influence every process of legislative effectively and efficiently. Thus the social forces are always influence to the step of legal enforcement and to the role holder such as the judge, police, attorney, et cetera.
There are some factors influencing to the judge in pronouncing a punishment. These factors according to Loebby Luqman includes: (1) Raw input, i.e. factors relating to the ethnic, religion, informal education, et cetera; (2) Instrumental in-put, i.e. factor relating to the job and formal education; and (3) Environmental in-put, i.e. environmental factor, cultural social of which influence in the life of a judge, for example the organizational environment, and so on.
Sudirman states that there are some factors influencing individual decision (includes the judge, the author added), i.e. dynamic of individual self, dynamic of group of person in society, dynamic of organizational environment, the existence of external stress, the existence of the influence of old habits, the existence of influence of private characteristic, the existence of influence of external group, and the existence of former condition. Furthermore it is stated that individual decision can be influenced by the values of which valid in the middle of society of which is given in surrounding environment. These values are: (1) political values, i.e. political value wherein the decision established is based on political necessities of the political party or the particular interesting group; (2) the organizational value, i.e. organizational value wherein a decision is made based on the values conceived by the organization, such as compensation and punishment of which can influence the member of organization for receiving and conducting it; (3) private value; i.e. a private value of which a decision is made on the basic of private values of which is conceived by an individual as decision maker for maintain the status quo, reputation, wealth, et cetera; (4) prudential value, i.e. a prudential value wherein a decision is made based on the principle of perception of policy maker towards public interest; and (5) Ideological value, i.e. values such as nationalism, of which can behalf as the principle of policy’s establishment.
Sabini stated that there are factors influencing towards the judge’s decision. These factors includes: the factors of judge himself, of which can be the sex, racial, authoritarian characteristic and marital status; the defendant factors likes sex, racial, and appeal; the factors of witness such as appeal, sex, and racial; the factors of public prosecutor such as authoritarian characteristic and appeal; factor of advocate such as appeal and racial; social factors, of which can be public opinion and culture.
The judge who works for deciding a case by positivism paradigm in particularly will differ to the non-positivism perspective. Positivism perspective will consider the law as the figure of which exists in the texts of legal regulation. The law is an object of which should be obeyed and followed appropriately to the formulation of black above white and free of context, thus the judge in deciding tend to pronounce a text, by reason of he can emphasize on the value of laws certainty. The judge of which has non-positivism perspective will consider the law as symbol of which has meaning of which is not unrelated to the moral value and social context of which becomes the social principles to the judge who works in process of trial. The decision of judge is not limited for fulfilling the certainty of regulation, however the judge will go out from the text book of regulation on the ground of the judge’s decision should fulfill the value of justice and value of beneficiary. The law should has the validity philosophically, juridical and sociologically. The judge consideration is not limited to these texts, instead the judge will pronounce appropriate to the conviction and values of ethical-moral of which based on the rule of the judge in deciding. The difference of paradigm of the judge can implicate to the decision to establish.
Research Method
This research begun from the constructivism paradigm, wherein the author strives to conduct the deep comprehension on the case conveyed by a person in this matter the judge. Ontologically this paradigm perceives the reality as varies is a construction emerged of which based on social, local and specific experience. The resolution of author/watcher and object is a whole, subjective and the result of interaction of both. This research includes qualitative research by socio legal and hermeneutic approach. The data sourced from primary and secondary data, by dialectic hermeneutic analysis in regulation of method, critique, and philosophy. The social background of this research was Public Court and Tipikor Court. This selection is based on the consideration that from these two institutions the author can gain the judge’s decision in particularly those which is relating to the corruption case. The data was collected by deep interview, observation and document study. The data of research was validated by method of source triangulation.
Result of Research and Discussion
The result of this research shows that there is difference on judge legal culture in public court and tipikor court of which is caused by some factors which influences the process of legal enforcement in both institutions. In tipikor court is mostly determined by factors: (1) process of inquiry, investigation, and pursuit through the more progressive and independent new institutional, i.e. Committee of Corruption Elimination (KPK); (2) the completeness of the verifying materials of which are collected by KPK and in the process of jurisdiction very convince the judge council, thus there is no niche and reason for setting free the defendant; (3) the judge council is always able to verify the elements of corruption criminal action of which is pledged, on the ground of the completeness of the support of verifying material; (4) the existence of ad hoc judge elements of which is able to dynamize the trial process; (5) the support of spirit and working ethos of the professional apparatus and also the sufficient wealth; and (6) there is no establishment of SP3 in the process of investigation and the pursuit of which can be functioned for the interest beyond the law.
In Public Court is determined more by the factors: (1) process of investigation, inquiry, and the pursuit through the old institutional line, i.e. the police force and judiciary that have indications: conventional, bureaucratic, centralistic and corruptive nuanced and also lack of independence; (2) the support of verifying materials of which are collected by the police and the judiciary contains many lack, incomplete and even there is indication of deliberateness of which is weakened for the certain importance; (3) there is the tendency of the judge council to deflect the corruption case into the legal domain of the state structure or administrative law; (4) there is no ad hoc judge element of which can dynamize the performance of carrier of the judge, (5) the pursuit of which is made by JPU often lack and support of complete and convincing verifying material or the pursuit of which is deliberately weakened since the beginning of certain necessities; the lack of support of professional working ethos and the sufficient wealth; (7) there is SP3 in the process of investigation and pursuit, of which mostly functioned for the necessities beyond the law.
The result of this research shows the process of case investigation by the law in the court is not only behalf as juridical technical concern, however in fact it involves the non-legal factors. The judge always involves and dialogue to the values of which are embedded beneath the head of the judge. The judge will select what values of which is emphasized or prioritized, either for his private necessities, his carrier, other person’s, his group, or the society as widely.
These values behave as the gamble to the judge in sentencing the case. The selection to these values are very depends to the orientation of values held by the judge in determining the alternatives. The alternative to these values in practice is very influenced by the rank of necessities, life demand, environment and habits and also the private characteristic of the judge. Thus, in practice, it can happens alteration of value alternatives by the judge, i.e. from the basic values or ideal or objective values of the law alters to subjective values of which are prioritized by the subject in certain period by various way and opportunity.
The explanation of aforementioned above data shows that the necessities and life demand of which has material/financial characteristic to the judge is involved in pronouncing process of decision making. The judge in the process of case investigation can not be sterile from any private necessities beyond the law. The findings of this research also strengthen the thesis on the existence of mafia of jurisdiction in particularly in the level of judge.
The result of this research proves and also support the thesis submitted by Sudirman and Satjipto Rahardjo. According to Sudirman there are two types of judge in making decision. First, before making decision the judge initially has dialogue to the absolute laws. After it was founded the legal principle in the laws, then implemented into concrete case. However in the implementation the judge never concern whether the formulation of the laws is still relevant to the justice sense in society. It has been appropriate if the formulation in the laws is appropriate to the case he handled. It can be said that the judge in this matter has role as trumpet of the absolute laws. Such procedure is usually implemented by the judges that have legalist-positivistic perspective.
Second, in making decision, the judge initially dialogues to his inner hearth. He asked to his inner hearth on the appropriateness of the decision he will take. After dialoguing with his inner heart, then he looks for the law principle in regulations. After it was founded legal principle, soon after the judge draw decision. However the decision implemented is not only merely refereed to the sentences of the laws, however it is appropriated to the justice sense in society. Such procedure is usually implemented by the laws that have sociologist perspective.
Furthermore it was revealed that there are some factors of which can influence individual decision (includes the judge, the author added), i.e. dynamic of individual self, dynamic of group of the person in society, dynamic of the organizational environment, the existence of outer pressure, the existence of influence of old habits, the existence of the influence of private characteristic, the existence of the influence of outer group, and the existence of influence of former condition. Furthermore it is said that individual decision can be influenced by the values of which exist in the middle of society in surrounding environment. These values are: (1) politic value, i.e. politic value wherein the decision is made based on the politic necessities of the political party or the group of certain necessities; (2) Organizational value, i.e. organizational values wherein the decision is made based on the values held by organization, such as compensation and punishment of which can influence the members of organization for receiving and conducting it; (3) Private value, i.e. private value wherein the decision is made based on the private values held by the individual as the decision maker for maintain status quo, reputation, wealth, et cetera; (4) Prudence value, i.e. prudence value wherein decision is made based on perspective of the policy makers towards the public opinion; (5) Ideological value, i.e. value such as nationalism of which can behalf as the principle of policy maker.
Along with the classification of the judge, Satjipto Rahardjo also broke the classification of judge in Indonesia into two types, i.e. (1) The type of judge which if he investigates, initially ask to his inner hearth or hear the decision of his inner hearth and then look for the articles and regulations for support his decision; and (2) The type of judge which if he decides, initially he consults to his own necessities and then look for the articles for giving legitimacy to his own decision.
Normatively, the judge is free in/or to bring to justice appropriate to his inner hearth or confidentiality without the influence of somebody. The judge is free to prove and decide any case based on his inner hearth. In addition, he is free from the intervention of extra-judicial parties. All of intervention in the trial concerns by the parties beyond the judge authority is prohibited, exceptionally in the matters mentioned in Constitution.
However in practice, this determination is seldom to violate. The judge in empirical regulation has not thoroughly conducted his function exactly and optimally to manifest the legal purpose. The function of legal enforcement of which is supposed to be directed for achieving the legal purpose, i.e. jurisdiction (based on One Mighty God) in the process of conduction has distortion, dysfunction or even mal-function of which is conducted by the legal enforcers themselves, either from the element of the judge, registrar, advocate, police, attorney, and case broker. This condition is described as “Mafioso of Judicature”.
From theoretical point of view Danandjaja has opinion that value is something embedded by someone concerning on what is more important and less important, what is better or worse, and what the righter or falser. The value can be differentiated into subjective and objective values. Subjective value is something someone considers can fulfill his necessities in certain time and thus interesting person has interest on it, thus it is looked for, hunted and chased by using various ways and tools. The subjective value is mentioned also as extrinsic value, for example extrinsic value of a product is different according to someone if compared to other person. Meanwhile objective value is something has meaning for everyone. Based on this opinion, it seems there is bag of virtues, bag containing ready to transfer value to the persons and this value is mentioned also as intrinsic value. Objective value can be constructed based on the certain value categories, i.e.: (1) prioritized thing, the alternative based on the consideration of necessities; (2) good thing, the selection based on moral consideration or ethical consideration, and (3) the right thing, the alternative based on logical consideration.
Spranger has opinion that culture is a system of values, on the ground of culture is not exceptional as the set of values of which is compiled appropriate to certain structure. The culture as system or structure of values by Spranger is classified into six value fields. These six values aforementioned above can be classified into two major group, i.e.: (1) field of value relating to human as individual, comprising of the value of knowledge (theory), value of economy, value of art, and value of religion; (2) field of value relating to the love and passion for authority, comprising of social value and political value.
Someone life attitude is determined by dominant value of culture, i.e. a value of culture of which is perceived as the highest value (the most meaningful). He will consider all things through the glass of value of which is highly regarded. Six human principle values influence the creation of human attitude thus there also are six human basic attitudes based on these six principle values. In addition of these six attitude principles, there is still founded the difference between the attitude and the combinations of the attitude. Attitude towards the knowledge (theory) for example is differentiated furthermore to other variations, i.e. (1) empirical theoretical human, (2) rational theoretical human, (3) critical theoretical human.
We will find attitude of which is actually pure in practical life. Those we find is the combinative attitudes of these sex attitudes, for example the combination of the theoretical attitude to economical attitude, theoretical attitude to religious attitude, and so on.
System of value owned and held by someone or group of people, has function to: (1) select the meaningful and trivial product, matter, activity, relation; (2) differentiate the important and trivial happenings; whether person is good and supposed to be praiseworthy and those who is evil and supposed to be blame worthy; (3) tap various information of which entered, those which is important and trivial, those which is important and trivial, those which is advantageous and disadvantageous; (4) select the action of which is needed and must to conduct and those which is not needed and must to avoid; (5) giving direction, purpose and the meaning to self and whole life, and (6) create personal identity and personality.
Value also has forcing and directing power to the creation of human self through their actions. Human as person develops and changes overtime inside and through their actions. Concretely all of these actions are directed to response the values they founded and felt, of which contains a must for manifesting (towards positive value) as well as to eliminate or make it disappear (towards negative value). It means the value has role to direct and give the attractive power to human in creating themselves through their actions.
As had been known that the core of legal culture concept is values owned by someone or group of person wherein these values are determinative towards attitude and behavior of someone or group of people towards the law/law system. These values are the guidance and the life influence of someone of group of people in their daily life either individual or group. Values also determine whether something is meaningful, supposed to need or intended, praiseworthy, regarded, highly esteemed, looked for, strived for and wished on its manifestation. The alternative of values is based on the influence of orientation, perspective, sense, behavior and attitude factors of someone of which is based on the greatness of the force of necessities, willingness, hope, and opinion of someone towards something.
From this perspective the judge in handling a case of which submitted before him is related to the alternative of values he held and convinced, which exist in head and hearth of the judge, of which influences to his behavior and attitude for determining whether someone guilty or not (the defendant/the accused) and determine the punishment of which suitable to pronounced if he is sentenced as guilty. The alternative towards these values very determines the quality of the judge decision is considered as right and fair.
Progressive law can be presented to behave as reconstruction of judge legal culture in handling the corruption case. It is based on objective fact (existing construction) wherein former legal culture value of which had been institutionalized in legal institution and held firmly by the legal functionaries (judge) is not appropriate anymore and sufficient to behave as the manual in finishing the legal problem emerging currently of which is more complex. The former legal culture values need to be renewed and substituted to the new values of which are more appropriate and sufficient to the development of legal knowledge paradigm of which exist in responding to various threats of very complex legal problem. The traits of progressive judge in legal enforcement are: (1) Has the competence of knowledge, professional capability, and the superior personality as the enforcer (actor); (2) Has intellectual intelligence, emotional and spiritual to present the justice and legal truth; (3) Has clear legal paradigm of which orient to manifest the fair value and truth as well as consider law is not unrelated from its social relevance; (4) Able to take the role and duty not only behaves as reader of the series of alphabet of the laws that is made by legislative institution, however in his decision he has responsibility to behave the sound of health mind and articulate the justice spirit in the complexity and dynamic of social life: (5) Able to conduct alteration by conducting the creative interpretation towards given regulations, without should wait for the change of regulation. The bad regulation does not have to become the barrier to the progressive law conductor for bringing justice to the people and justice seekers, on the ground of they conduct interpretation overtime to a regulation; (6) Reject the status quo condition, during the condition emerges decadency, corruptive nuance, and spirit of which brings disadvantageous to the people.
Conclusion
This research concluded: first, the happening of the difference of judge legal culture in public court and tipikor court is caused by various factors supporting and impeding to the process of legal enforcement in both institutions. These factors include the institutional factors in process of investigation, pursuit, composition of the judge council, professionalism of the apparatus and working ethos, as well as the support of given verifying material.
Second, the process of corruption case enforcement in the court is not merely determined by juridical technical factor, however is involves many non-legal factors. In practice there happens the alteration of value orientation in enforcing law by the judge from the ideal values of the law into the subjective value of the judge, the indication of corruption case becomes the commodity source of the judge to gain politic and economic profit.
Third, the progressive law can be presented for becoming the basic of reconstruction of judge legal culture in handling corruption case. It is based on the objective fact wherein the values of former legal culture of which had been institutionalized in legal institution and highly embedded by the legal functionaries has not been appropriate and sufficient to become the manual in finishing legal problem of which emerge currently of which is more complex. The value of former legal culture needs to renew and substitute by new values of which are more sufficient and appropriate to the development of legal knowledge paradigm of which exists in responding to various threats of very complex legal problem.
List of Author Identities:
1. Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya, Guru Besar pada Fakultas Hukum Undip Semarang
2. Esmi Warassih Puji Rahayu, Guru Besar pada Fakultas Hukum Undip Semarang
3. Abdul Jalil, Dosen Tetap Fakultas Hukum Undip Semarang
4. M.Syamsudin, Peserta Program Doktor Ilmu Hukum Undip angkatan XI (2005) dan Dosen Tetap Fakultas Hukum UII Jogjakarta,
5. M.Adil Maulana, mahasiswa magister hukum (S2) Undip Semarang
6. Bintang Ade Wirawan, mahasiswa magister hukum (S2) Undip Semarang
M.Syamsudin, M.Adil Maulana, Bintang Ade Wirawan
Abstract
This research intended to comprehend, reveal and explore the legal culture of the judge in law enforcement of corruption criminal action in the court. The case studied comprises of: (1) why there is any difference in judge’s legal culture in public court and tipikor court of which causes the different decision to the similar case? (2) How is the conduction of non-legal factors such as economy and politic in sentencing a case? (3) How is the reconstruction of the judge’s legal culture in pronouncing a verdict of which can actualize the fairness and functionality to the society. The data was sourced from primary and secondary data, by analysis dialectic hermeneutic in the rank of method, critique and philosophy. The data validation used source triangulation. The result of this research shows there are some supporting and impeding factors in process of legal enforcement in both institutions. The factors comprises of institutional support in the process of investigation and pursuit, composition of judge’s council, professionalism of apparatus and working ethos, as well as the support of given verifying material. The process of enforcement of corruption case in the court is not merely determined by the movement or orientation of value in enforcing law by the judge from the ideal values of the law into the subjective values of the judge, the indication of corruption case becomes the commodity source of the judge for gaining political and economical profit. Progressive law can be presented to be the basic of reconstruction of judge’s legal culture in overwhelming the corruption case. It is based on the objective fact wherein the values of old legal culture of which has been institutionalized in legal institution and held strongly by the judge needs to be enlightened for completing the more complex legal problem. The old cultural values needs to be renewed and substituted by the news values of which is more appropriate and suitable to the development of legal knowledge paradigm for solving up the legal problem fairly, advantageously, and protect the society.
Keyword: judge’s legal culture, law enforcement, judge’s decision in corruption criminal act
Problem Background
The performance of the court, in particularly the judge, in legal enforcement of corruption criminal action still shows the dissatisfying achievement. Based on the result of monitoring of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) towards the court decisions on corruption in the environment of Public Court since 2005 – 2008, showed the significant increase towards the innocent verdict (freedom) to the accused of corruption case. In 2005 there was 22,22% of 243 defendants of which were pronounced as innocent. In 2006 it increased to 31,40% from 361 defendants of which were pronounced as innocent. In 2007 it increase to 56,84% of 373 defendants of which were pronounced as innocent and lastly in 2008 it increased to 62,38% from 444 defendants of which was pronounced as innocent. It means there was significant increased towards the innocent verdict of which is sentenced by the judge. During 2005 to 2008 averagely the innocent verdict annually increased by 13,38%.
In the other side from the decision of judge of which pronounced that the defendant is guilty, in fact the punishment is relatively light. During 2005-2008 the average of imprisonment verdict of which pronounced by Public Court was 8,82 months in prison. Following the Luthan’s classification of criminal punishment, this verdict is classified as lightest. Even in 2008, Public Court has pronounced the trial punishment towards 10 defendants of corruption (2,25%).
The condition of corruption management by Public Court is reservedly compared to the management of corruption case by Tipikor Court in particularly in the first rank. Since the founding in 2004 up to now (2008) the judges in Tipikor Court in the investigation of the case in first rank had never pronounced innocent sentence towards the defendant of corruption. The Tipikor Court also didn’t comprehend on the trial verdict or verdict under 1 (one) month of imprisonment. Tipikor Court pronounced verdict of imprisonment averagely 50,90 months of imprisonment or 4,24 years imprisonment.
Based on the research of Judicial Commission of Republic of Indonesia, the judge decision mostly contains the problem faced by the judge during construct any verdict, either those which is relating to the capability in technical matter of pronouncing a verdict, capability in compiling the considering principles used, the capability on interpretation of legal facts, the capability to construct the law, the sensitiveness based on the theory or philosophy used, personal morality, as well as in finally in the product of verdict of which has not reflected any social fairness. Shortly, the judge verdict still contains any problems of which needs to look for any solution from the legal science in particularly the researcher will review on the judge’s legal culture aspect.
Based on the background, it seems that judge’s legal culture in Public Court is different to the judge’s legal culture in Tipikor Court. Thus, the research strived to review on aspect of judge’s legal culture, i.e. conviction, attitude and personal (individual) value principle of the judge. The culture of the judge is related to social context wherein the judge conducts his profession. In the process of pronouncing verdict, the judge works based on the judge’s conviction or moral activity not merely caused by it is bound to the regulations. Such was the opinion of a judge, Brandeis Foabunte.
Problem Formulation
The problem formulation of this research comprises of: (1) why there happened difference on judge’s legal culture in public court and tipikor court of which causes the difference verdict in similar case? (2) How is the operation of non-legal factors such as economy and politic in pronouncing a case?; and (3) How is the reconstruction of the judge’s legal culture in pronouncing a verdict of which can actualize the fairness and functionality to the society?
Theoretical Ground
Concept of Legal Culture and Judge’s Legal Culture
Daniel S. Lev in his writing entitled Judicial Institutions and Legal Culture in Indonesia explains on legal system and legal culture. According to Lev, legal system emphasizes on the procedure however it does not explain on how actually these persons finish their problem in their daily life. Meanwhile legal culture is detailed into “procedural legal values” and “substantive legal values”. Procedural legal values concerns on the social regulation and management of conflict. Meanwhile, substantive component of legal culture comprises of the fundamental assumptions concerning on distribution or the usage of sources in society, in particularly concerning on what is fair or not according to the society, et cetera. Legal culture is the important element for comprehending the difference existing between one legal system to other.
In the more extensive comprehension, Lawrence M. Friedman includes the component of legal culture as internal part of a legal system. Friedman differentiates the elements of systems into 3 (three) kinds, i.e.: (1) secondary; (2) substance; (3) culture. The component of “structure” is the institution created by legal system by various function in supporting the conduction of legal system. The component of “substance” is the outer of legal system. It includes the norms of which is actualized as regulations. Meanwhile the culture is values and attitudes of which are the bounder of the system, and also determines the system site in the middle of state culture as thoroughly. Concerning on this matter Friedman argued, that Legal system in actual operation is a complex organism in which structure, substance, and culture interact.
Friedman reviews that law is not appropriate for only discuss from structural and substantive perspectives, however it should also be reviewed from the field of elements of demands of which come from interest of individual and group in society during they face to legal institution. These interest and demands are the social forces reflected in the attitude and values given in society. The elements of social forces are also mentioned by Friedman as legal culture.
It is explained by Rahardjo these demands come from the society or the users of legal service and wish for a solution or selection of resolution procedure from the alternative of solution. This selection will be based on the influence of factors of individual orientation, perspective, feeling, attitude and behavior to the greatness of force influence of interest, idea, attitude, willingness, wise, and the opinion of person on law. If we selected the court, this mater is caused by those who concerns has positive perspective on the court and influenced by forcing factors.
The concept of legal culture can be differentiated into internal and external legal culture. Internal legal culture is a legal culture of a member of society who conduct the legal tasks in particularly, such as police, attorney, advocate and judge in conducting their tasks concerning on legal case. Meanwhile the external legal culture is a social legal culture in general, i.e. the attitude and social comprehension towards legal determinations validated by them in generally.
By referring to the elements given in legal cultural concept aforementioned above, of which comprises of the values and attitudes and also the differentiating of internal and external legal culture, thus it can be formulated or constructed a concept on judge legal culture in pronouncing a case. The judge’s legal culture is a set of values, conviction, idea, attitude and perspective owned by the judge in the process of pronouncing a case submitted to him for resolute in the court. The judge in sentencing a case submitted to him is not related to the set of values of which is contained and convicted its truth, of which exist in the consideration of the judge of which also influences the behavior and attitudes for determining whether someone (the defendant/accused) and determining the sanction of which appropriately to decided if he is pronounced as guilty. The selection towards these values also very determines the quality of the judge’s decision of which is considered as right, fair and advantageous. The values, attitudes and the conviction of the judge will determine the decision made whether it will set free or pronounce a heavy or light punishment.
The Factors Influencing in Law Enforcement
In principally the law contains abstract idea or concepts. Although it is abstract, however it is established for implemented in their daily social life. Thus, it needs an activity for actualize the ideas into society. The set of activity in order to actualize the ideas into fact is a process of legal enforcement.
According to Robert B. Seidman that the conduction of law is always concerns to the social, cultural, economical, political forces, et cetera. All of social forces always participate to work in every effort for making function of the valid regulations, the implementation of sanction and in all of activities of its executive institutions. Thus the role conducted by the institution and legal regulations is a result of the operation of various kinds of factors. The existence of social forces in the operation of this law is described by Seidman as follow.
Based on the Chamblis and Seidman’s scheme, it can be explained that the role of social activity begun from the step of regulations establishment, its implementation and to the role hoped. Consciously or unconsciously the social force has been operated in the step of regulations. The social forces will always strive to enter and influence every process of legislative effectively and efficiently. Thus the social forces are always influence to the step of legal enforcement and to the role holder such as the judge, police, attorney, et cetera.
There are some factors influencing to the judge in pronouncing a punishment. These factors according to Loebby Luqman includes: (1) Raw input, i.e. factors relating to the ethnic, religion, informal education, et cetera; (2) Instrumental in-put, i.e. factor relating to the job and formal education; and (3) Environmental in-put, i.e. environmental factor, cultural social of which influence in the life of a judge, for example the organizational environment, and so on.
Sudirman states that there are some factors influencing individual decision (includes the judge, the author added), i.e. dynamic of individual self, dynamic of group of person in society, dynamic of organizational environment, the existence of external stress, the existence of the influence of old habits, the existence of influence of private characteristic, the existence of influence of external group, and the existence of former condition. Furthermore it is stated that individual decision can be influenced by the values of which valid in the middle of society of which is given in surrounding environment. These values are: (1) political values, i.e. political value wherein the decision established is based on political necessities of the political party or the particular interesting group; (2) the organizational value, i.e. organizational value wherein a decision is made based on the values conceived by the organization, such as compensation and punishment of which can influence the member of organization for receiving and conducting it; (3) private value; i.e. a private value of which a decision is made on the basic of private values of which is conceived by an individual as decision maker for maintain the status quo, reputation, wealth, et cetera; (4) prudential value, i.e. a prudential value wherein a decision is made based on the principle of perception of policy maker towards public interest; and (5) Ideological value, i.e. values such as nationalism, of which can behalf as the principle of policy’s establishment.
Sabini stated that there are factors influencing towards the judge’s decision. These factors includes: the factors of judge himself, of which can be the sex, racial, authoritarian characteristic and marital status; the defendant factors likes sex, racial, and appeal; the factors of witness such as appeal, sex, and racial; the factors of public prosecutor such as authoritarian characteristic and appeal; factor of advocate such as appeal and racial; social factors, of which can be public opinion and culture.
The judge who works for deciding a case by positivism paradigm in particularly will differ to the non-positivism perspective. Positivism perspective will consider the law as the figure of which exists in the texts of legal regulation. The law is an object of which should be obeyed and followed appropriately to the formulation of black above white and free of context, thus the judge in deciding tend to pronounce a text, by reason of he can emphasize on the value of laws certainty. The judge of which has non-positivism perspective will consider the law as symbol of which has meaning of which is not unrelated to the moral value and social context of which becomes the social principles to the judge who works in process of trial. The decision of judge is not limited for fulfilling the certainty of regulation, however the judge will go out from the text book of regulation on the ground of the judge’s decision should fulfill the value of justice and value of beneficiary. The law should has the validity philosophically, juridical and sociologically. The judge consideration is not limited to these texts, instead the judge will pronounce appropriate to the conviction and values of ethical-moral of which based on the rule of the judge in deciding. The difference of paradigm of the judge can implicate to the decision to establish.
Research Method
This research begun from the constructivism paradigm, wherein the author strives to conduct the deep comprehension on the case conveyed by a person in this matter the judge. Ontologically this paradigm perceives the reality as varies is a construction emerged of which based on social, local and specific experience. The resolution of author/watcher and object is a whole, subjective and the result of interaction of both. This research includes qualitative research by socio legal and hermeneutic approach. The data sourced from primary and secondary data, by dialectic hermeneutic analysis in regulation of method, critique, and philosophy. The social background of this research was Public Court and Tipikor Court. This selection is based on the consideration that from these two institutions the author can gain the judge’s decision in particularly those which is relating to the corruption case. The data was collected by deep interview, observation and document study. The data of research was validated by method of source triangulation.
Result of Research and Discussion
The result of this research shows that there is difference on judge legal culture in public court and tipikor court of which is caused by some factors which influences the process of legal enforcement in both institutions. In tipikor court is mostly determined by factors: (1) process of inquiry, investigation, and pursuit through the more progressive and independent new institutional, i.e. Committee of Corruption Elimination (KPK); (2) the completeness of the verifying materials of which are collected by KPK and in the process of jurisdiction very convince the judge council, thus there is no niche and reason for setting free the defendant; (3) the judge council is always able to verify the elements of corruption criminal action of which is pledged, on the ground of the completeness of the support of verifying material; (4) the existence of ad hoc judge elements of which is able to dynamize the trial process; (5) the support of spirit and working ethos of the professional apparatus and also the sufficient wealth; and (6) there is no establishment of SP3 in the process of investigation and the pursuit of which can be functioned for the interest beyond the law.
In Public Court is determined more by the factors: (1) process of investigation, inquiry, and the pursuit through the old institutional line, i.e. the police force and judiciary that have indications: conventional, bureaucratic, centralistic and corruptive nuanced and also lack of independence; (2) the support of verifying materials of which are collected by the police and the judiciary contains many lack, incomplete and even there is indication of deliberateness of which is weakened for the certain importance; (3) there is the tendency of the judge council to deflect the corruption case into the legal domain of the state structure or administrative law; (4) there is no ad hoc judge element of which can dynamize the performance of carrier of the judge, (5) the pursuit of which is made by JPU often lack and support of complete and convincing verifying material or the pursuit of which is deliberately weakened since the beginning of certain necessities; the lack of support of professional working ethos and the sufficient wealth; (7) there is SP3 in the process of investigation and pursuit, of which mostly functioned for the necessities beyond the law.
The result of this research shows the process of case investigation by the law in the court is not only behalf as juridical technical concern, however in fact it involves the non-legal factors. The judge always involves and dialogue to the values of which are embedded beneath the head of the judge. The judge will select what values of which is emphasized or prioritized, either for his private necessities, his carrier, other person’s, his group, or the society as widely.
These values behave as the gamble to the judge in sentencing the case. The selection to these values are very depends to the orientation of values held by the judge in determining the alternatives. The alternative to these values in practice is very influenced by the rank of necessities, life demand, environment and habits and also the private characteristic of the judge. Thus, in practice, it can happens alteration of value alternatives by the judge, i.e. from the basic values or ideal or objective values of the law alters to subjective values of which are prioritized by the subject in certain period by various way and opportunity.
The explanation of aforementioned above data shows that the necessities and life demand of which has material/financial characteristic to the judge is involved in pronouncing process of decision making. The judge in the process of case investigation can not be sterile from any private necessities beyond the law. The findings of this research also strengthen the thesis on the existence of mafia of jurisdiction in particularly in the level of judge.
The result of this research proves and also support the thesis submitted by Sudirman and Satjipto Rahardjo. According to Sudirman there are two types of judge in making decision. First, before making decision the judge initially has dialogue to the absolute laws. After it was founded the legal principle in the laws, then implemented into concrete case. However in the implementation the judge never concern whether the formulation of the laws is still relevant to the justice sense in society. It has been appropriate if the formulation in the laws is appropriate to the case he handled. It can be said that the judge in this matter has role as trumpet of the absolute laws. Such procedure is usually implemented by the judges that have legalist-positivistic perspective.
Second, in making decision, the judge initially dialogues to his inner hearth. He asked to his inner hearth on the appropriateness of the decision he will take. After dialoguing with his inner heart, then he looks for the law principle in regulations. After it was founded legal principle, soon after the judge draw decision. However the decision implemented is not only merely refereed to the sentences of the laws, however it is appropriated to the justice sense in society. Such procedure is usually implemented by the laws that have sociologist perspective.
Furthermore it was revealed that there are some factors of which can influence individual decision (includes the judge, the author added), i.e. dynamic of individual self, dynamic of group of the person in society, dynamic of the organizational environment, the existence of outer pressure, the existence of influence of old habits, the existence of the influence of private characteristic, the existence of the influence of outer group, and the existence of influence of former condition. Furthermore it is said that individual decision can be influenced by the values of which exist in the middle of society in surrounding environment. These values are: (1) politic value, i.e. politic value wherein the decision is made based on the politic necessities of the political party or the group of certain necessities; (2) Organizational value, i.e. organizational values wherein the decision is made based on the values held by organization, such as compensation and punishment of which can influence the members of organization for receiving and conducting it; (3) Private value, i.e. private value wherein the decision is made based on the private values held by the individual as the decision maker for maintain status quo, reputation, wealth, et cetera; (4) Prudence value, i.e. prudence value wherein decision is made based on perspective of the policy makers towards the public opinion; (5) Ideological value, i.e. value such as nationalism of which can behalf as the principle of policy maker.
Along with the classification of the judge, Satjipto Rahardjo also broke the classification of judge in Indonesia into two types, i.e. (1) The type of judge which if he investigates, initially ask to his inner hearth or hear the decision of his inner hearth and then look for the articles and regulations for support his decision; and (2) The type of judge which if he decides, initially he consults to his own necessities and then look for the articles for giving legitimacy to his own decision.
Normatively, the judge is free in/or to bring to justice appropriate to his inner hearth or confidentiality without the influence of somebody. The judge is free to prove and decide any case based on his inner hearth. In addition, he is free from the intervention of extra-judicial parties. All of intervention in the trial concerns by the parties beyond the judge authority is prohibited, exceptionally in the matters mentioned in Constitution.
However in practice, this determination is seldom to violate. The judge in empirical regulation has not thoroughly conducted his function exactly and optimally to manifest the legal purpose. The function of legal enforcement of which is supposed to be directed for achieving the legal purpose, i.e. jurisdiction (based on One Mighty God) in the process of conduction has distortion, dysfunction or even mal-function of which is conducted by the legal enforcers themselves, either from the element of the judge, registrar, advocate, police, attorney, and case broker. This condition is described as “Mafioso of Judicature”.
From theoretical point of view Danandjaja has opinion that value is something embedded by someone concerning on what is more important and less important, what is better or worse, and what the righter or falser. The value can be differentiated into subjective and objective values. Subjective value is something someone considers can fulfill his necessities in certain time and thus interesting person has interest on it, thus it is looked for, hunted and chased by using various ways and tools. The subjective value is mentioned also as extrinsic value, for example extrinsic value of a product is different according to someone if compared to other person. Meanwhile objective value is something has meaning for everyone. Based on this opinion, it seems there is bag of virtues, bag containing ready to transfer value to the persons and this value is mentioned also as intrinsic value. Objective value can be constructed based on the certain value categories, i.e.: (1) prioritized thing, the alternative based on the consideration of necessities; (2) good thing, the selection based on moral consideration or ethical consideration, and (3) the right thing, the alternative based on logical consideration.
Spranger has opinion that culture is a system of values, on the ground of culture is not exceptional as the set of values of which is compiled appropriate to certain structure. The culture as system or structure of values by Spranger is classified into six value fields. These six values aforementioned above can be classified into two major group, i.e.: (1) field of value relating to human as individual, comprising of the value of knowledge (theory), value of economy, value of art, and value of religion; (2) field of value relating to the love and passion for authority, comprising of social value and political value.
Someone life attitude is determined by dominant value of culture, i.e. a value of culture of which is perceived as the highest value (the most meaningful). He will consider all things through the glass of value of which is highly regarded. Six human principle values influence the creation of human attitude thus there also are six human basic attitudes based on these six principle values. In addition of these six attitude principles, there is still founded the difference between the attitude and the combinations of the attitude. Attitude towards the knowledge (theory) for example is differentiated furthermore to other variations, i.e. (1) empirical theoretical human, (2) rational theoretical human, (3) critical theoretical human.
We will find attitude of which is actually pure in practical life. Those we find is the combinative attitudes of these sex attitudes, for example the combination of the theoretical attitude to economical attitude, theoretical attitude to religious attitude, and so on.
System of value owned and held by someone or group of people, has function to: (1) select the meaningful and trivial product, matter, activity, relation; (2) differentiate the important and trivial happenings; whether person is good and supposed to be praiseworthy and those who is evil and supposed to be blame worthy; (3) tap various information of which entered, those which is important and trivial, those which is important and trivial, those which is advantageous and disadvantageous; (4) select the action of which is needed and must to conduct and those which is not needed and must to avoid; (5) giving direction, purpose and the meaning to self and whole life, and (6) create personal identity and personality.
Value also has forcing and directing power to the creation of human self through their actions. Human as person develops and changes overtime inside and through their actions. Concretely all of these actions are directed to response the values they founded and felt, of which contains a must for manifesting (towards positive value) as well as to eliminate or make it disappear (towards negative value). It means the value has role to direct and give the attractive power to human in creating themselves through their actions.
As had been known that the core of legal culture concept is values owned by someone or group of person wherein these values are determinative towards attitude and behavior of someone or group of people towards the law/law system. These values are the guidance and the life influence of someone of group of people in their daily life either individual or group. Values also determine whether something is meaningful, supposed to need or intended, praiseworthy, regarded, highly esteemed, looked for, strived for and wished on its manifestation. The alternative of values is based on the influence of orientation, perspective, sense, behavior and attitude factors of someone of which is based on the greatness of the force of necessities, willingness, hope, and opinion of someone towards something.
From this perspective the judge in handling a case of which submitted before him is related to the alternative of values he held and convinced, which exist in head and hearth of the judge, of which influences to his behavior and attitude for determining whether someone guilty or not (the defendant/the accused) and determine the punishment of which suitable to pronounced if he is sentenced as guilty. The alternative towards these values very determines the quality of the judge decision is considered as right and fair.
Progressive law can be presented to behave as reconstruction of judge legal culture in handling the corruption case. It is based on objective fact (existing construction) wherein former legal culture value of which had been institutionalized in legal institution and held firmly by the legal functionaries (judge) is not appropriate anymore and sufficient to behave as the manual in finishing the legal problem emerging currently of which is more complex. The former legal culture values need to be renewed and substituted to the new values of which are more appropriate and sufficient to the development of legal knowledge paradigm of which exist in responding to various threats of very complex legal problem. The traits of progressive judge in legal enforcement are: (1) Has the competence of knowledge, professional capability, and the superior personality as the enforcer (actor); (2) Has intellectual intelligence, emotional and spiritual to present the justice and legal truth; (3) Has clear legal paradigm of which orient to manifest the fair value and truth as well as consider law is not unrelated from its social relevance; (4) Able to take the role and duty not only behaves as reader of the series of alphabet of the laws that is made by legislative institution, however in his decision he has responsibility to behave the sound of health mind and articulate the justice spirit in the complexity and dynamic of social life: (5) Able to conduct alteration by conducting the creative interpretation towards given regulations, without should wait for the change of regulation. The bad regulation does not have to become the barrier to the progressive law conductor for bringing justice to the people and justice seekers, on the ground of they conduct interpretation overtime to a regulation; (6) Reject the status quo condition, during the condition emerges decadency, corruptive nuance, and spirit of which brings disadvantageous to the people.
Conclusion
This research concluded: first, the happening of the difference of judge legal culture in public court and tipikor court is caused by various factors supporting and impeding to the process of legal enforcement in both institutions. These factors include the institutional factors in process of investigation, pursuit, composition of the judge council, professionalism of the apparatus and working ethos, as well as the support of given verifying material.
Second, the process of corruption case enforcement in the court is not merely determined by juridical technical factor, however is involves many non-legal factors. In practice there happens the alteration of value orientation in enforcing law by the judge from the ideal values of the law into the subjective value of the judge, the indication of corruption case becomes the commodity source of the judge to gain politic and economic profit.
Third, the progressive law can be presented for becoming the basic of reconstruction of judge legal culture in handling corruption case. It is based on the objective fact wherein the values of former legal culture of which had been institutionalized in legal institution and highly embedded by the legal functionaries has not been appropriate and sufficient to become the manual in finishing legal problem of which emerge currently of which is more complex. The value of former legal culture needs to renew and substitute by new values of which are more sufficient and appropriate to the development of legal knowledge paradigm of which exists in responding to various threats of very complex legal problem.
List of Author Identities:
1. Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya, Guru Besar pada Fakultas Hukum Undip Semarang
2. Esmi Warassih Puji Rahayu, Guru Besar pada Fakultas Hukum Undip Semarang
3. Abdul Jalil, Dosen Tetap Fakultas Hukum Undip Semarang
4. M.Syamsudin, Peserta Program Doktor Ilmu Hukum Undip angkatan XI (2005) dan Dosen Tetap Fakultas Hukum UII Jogjakarta,
5. M.Adil Maulana, mahasiswa magister hukum (S2) Undip Semarang
6. Bintang Ade Wirawan, mahasiswa magister hukum (S2) Undip Semarang
