p–ISSN: 2723 - 6609 e-ISSN: 2745-5254
Vol. 5, No. 1 January 2024 http://jist.publikasiindonesia.id/

Doi: 10.59141/jist.v5i01.858 288

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE DETERMINATION OF CORRUPTION
SUSPECTS LAND COMPENSATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE

PADANG TOLL ROAD

Tegha Arjuharrido Rahmardiko1*, Anis Rifai2, Anas Lutfi3
Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia

Email: [email protected]*, [email protected], [email protected]

*Correspondence
ABSTRACT

Keywords: Corruption, Land
Acquisition, Tol Road.

This paper intends to examine and analyse the determination of
suspects by the high prosecutor's office in the land acquisition
corruption case in the Padang - Sicincin Toll Road construction project.
Research using a normative juridical approach reveals that legal
instruments fail to show justice, where the determination of the suspect
in this case is detrimental to the people. Therefore, according to the
author, it is necessary to re-analyze the procedure for naming suspects
by law enforcement officials so that legal certainty can be found and
the decision to designate suspects does not harm the people. The results
of this study showed that there are no definite legal provisions on how
the prosecutor's office can determine a suspect. Choosing the suspect so
far is still in a grey area because there are no explicit provisions
regarding "preliminary evidence" to determine the suspect. On the other
hand, the panel of judges, in their considerations, decided that the
subsidiary charges were not proven and had not been legally and
convincingly proven guilty of committing a criminal act. On the other
hand, the panel of judges, in their considerations, decided that the
subsidiary charges were not proven and had not been legally and
convincingly proven guilty of committing a criminal act.

Introduction

On November 3 2020, several Padang Pariaman residents claimed compensation
for the land used to construct the Padang–Sicincin section of the toll road (Badgley et
al., 2020). However, after the disbursement of compensation money was carried out,
there was a problem, namely the location of the land that was compensated in the Parit
Malintang area, especially those that entered the Biological Garden area in 2009, had
received compensation for plants and buildings sourced from the regional budget and
had been recorded as assets of the Padang Pariaman Regional Government (Kafara,
2020)v. If the land has been recorded as an asset of the Padang Pariaman Regional
Government, there should be no need to compensate residents. Based on this, the West
Sumatra High Prosecutor's Office named 13 people as suspects of corruption in land
acquisition for road construction consisting of two Nagari officials, four people from the
National Land Agency, the Regional Government (Pemda) of Padang Pariaman
Regency and the Land Acquisition Executive, and seven people who received land or
land compensation (Khairunnisa, 2022). Not only were suspects established, but the 13
people were also detained. The lawyer for the community, who is a suspect in this case,
said that several communities named as suspects were victims of the poor land

Legal Analysis Of The Determination Of Corruption Suspects Land Compensation For The
Construction Of The Padang Toll Road

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 289

compensation process system. Even though the community only follows instructions
based on legal documents issued by the government and checked by BPN. This means
that people only follow systems and processes and complete all administration and
papers while the government determines the system and processes (Gomgoman
Simbolon, Albisar, Mulyadi, & Leviza, 2016).

The potential for abuse of authority can occur at the level of investigation and
prosecution by law enforcement officials against a person, for example, reducing and
limiting the right to independence and human rights of suspects that should not be done
by law to someone who is suspected of being a perpetrator or suspect (Masinambow,
2022).

After the detention process and trial in the court of first instance, the defendant
was acquitted of all charges. Decision number 08/Pid contains one of the verdict
processes.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg on behalf of defendant Yuniswan and decision
number 13/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg on behalf of defendant Kaidir.

The criminalisation and detention of land-owning communities are very
detrimental when they are innocent and do not reflect the state's objectives in the 1945
Constitution, namely "as protectors of the entire Indonesian nation and all Indonesian
bloodshed, promoting the general welfare, educating the life of the nation, participating
in efforts for world peace based on independence, lasting peace, and social justice."

Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research or re-analyze the prosecutor's
authority over the determination of suspects so that the determination of suspects is not
carried out arbitrarily to the detriment of the people. Apart from that, it is necessary to
re-examine how the Padang Pariaman District Court judges consider when deciding
cases.

Previous research was conducted (Masinambow, 2022) entitled Legal Analysis of
the Determination of Corruption Crime Suspects about the Authority of Judicial
Institutions with research results. The rigid principle of legality must not bind judges in
seeking justice. Based on a sociological point of view, analogies (analogy), extensive
interpretation, and a contrary interpretation, the discovery of law with rational
argumentation, not mere instinct, provides an opportunity to interpret pretrial objects
broadly. Determining the applicant's suspect status as invalid and not based on law has,
in principle, fulfilled the aim of seeking justice in determining pretrial objects. The
judge interprets the pretrial object broadly using sociological (teleological)
interpretation and argumentum rolealogiam interpretation, thereby including
determining the suspect's status as a pretrial object.

Similar research was also conducted by (Gomgoman Halomoan Simbolon, 2016).
in 2022 with the title Legal Analysis of Judges' Considerations of Nil Verdicts for
Perpetrators of Corruption Crimes with the results of research that if someone has been
sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment, then no other punishment may be
imposed except the revocation of certain rights, and the announcement of the verdict
judge. The judge's consideration in deciding on a nil sentence against the Defendant was
because he had committed more than one crime in more than one case, and the

Tegha Arjuharrido Rahmardiko, Anis Rifai, Anas Lutfi

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 290

punishment received by the Defendant exceeded 21 years based on Article 12 of the
Criminal Code Paragraph 4 in conjunction with Article 66 of the Criminal Code
Paragraph 1. However, this provision limits the possibility of people committing various
acts crimes are tried simultaneously or separately with a total exceeding 20 years in
prison. The addition of each sentence cumulatively may be possible based on Article
272 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states, "If a convict is sentenced to prison or
confinement and is then sentenced to a similar crime before he has served the sentence
imposed previously, then the sentence shall be carried out consecutively starting with
the sentence imposed more formerly".

Another research that can be used as a reference for this research is research
conducted by (Mokoagow, 2016), which was published in 2016 with the research title
Juridical Review of the Determination of Suspects by Investigators in Corruption
Crimes by Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Code of Laws Criminal Procedure.
The results of this research are that what is meant by a suspect is a person who, because
of his actions or circumstances, based on preliminary evidence, is reasonably suspected
of being the perpetrator of a criminal act. Article 44 of Law no. 30 of 2002 concerning
the Corruption Eradication Commission explains that if investigators carrying out an
investigation find sufficient initial evidence of a suspected criminal act of corruption, a
person can be designated as a suspect and continue at the investigative level (Sholikhati
& Mardikantoro, 2017). This is in line with the words of Article 1 point 14 of the
Criminal Procedure Code that a suspect is a person who, because of his actions or
circumstances, based on preliminary evidence, is reasonably suspected of being the
perpetrator of a criminal act. The suspect has rights from the moment he begins to be
questioned. Article 52 of the Criminal Code: "During examinations at the investigation
and court levels, suspects or defendants have the right to provide information freely to
investigators or judges. In the explanation of the article, it is clear what is meant is that
suspects must not be forced or pressured. Generally, these rights are reflected in the
principle of the presumption of innocence. As a guarantee of upholding the principle of
presumption of innocence in the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure
Code has provided guarantees that strictly regulate the rights of suspects (Pratama &
Apriani, 2022).

Several previous studies are related to this research, the difference being the
novelty of this research. Some of the differences are that the case study in this case is
relatively new, and no one has researched or analysed it. Apart from that, the variable in
previous research was the Authority of Pretrial Institutions, while in this study, the
variable studied was the Authority of the High Prosecutor's Office (Gomgoman
Halomoan Simbolon, 2016).

With the description of the events and previous research above, the land owners
are accused, and there is potential for abuse of authority; several problem formulations
can be drawn that can be studied in the form of:
1. What legal provisions govern the prosecutor's authority that can determine suspects?

Legal Analysis Of The Determination Of Corruption Suspects Land Compensation For The
Construction Of The Padang Toll Road

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 291

2. What is the basis for the consideration of the judges of the Padang Pariaman District
Court in Decision Number: 08/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg and Decision Number:
13/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg that decided the suspects in corruption cases are free?

This research aims to find out and understand the legal provisions of the
prosecutor's office in determining the suspects of 13 people who are suspected of
committing corruption in land procurement for the Padang toll road and to study and
analyse the basis for the judge's decision at the Padang Pariaman District Court to be by
the law.

Research Methods

The research was conducted from August 2023 to November 2023, with the
primary source of library material being the Padang Pariaman District Court Decision
No: 08/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg and 13/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg. Library materials
as secondary information in the form of books, journals and scientific research are also
used as data for this research.

This study used a normative approach. Normative legal research means analysing
law through legal principles, legal system analysis, legal synchronisation analysis, legal
history analysis, and comparative legal analysis. Normative legal research refers to
library materials classified as basic information for scientific research as secondary
information. With this secondary information, researchers do not need to conduct their
research and directly examine the factors behind it.

Normative legal research is doctrinal legal research. In normative research, the
law is often conceptualised as written in laws and regulations (law in the book) or as
rules or norms that provide a reference for behaviour considered appropriate in society
(Efendi, Prawitasari, & Susanto, 2021).

Results and Discussion
1. Authority of the Prosecutor's Office in Determining Suspects and Detaining

Suspects
The criminal justice system is aimed at organising the criminal justice process.

Each component has its function, for example, the police as investigators, the prosecutor
as the public prosecutor, the court as the prosecuting party, and the penitentiary whose
role is to socialise the convicted, where these components cooperate and integrate to
achieve the goal of dealing with crime.

The Prosecutor's Office, as the public prosecutor itself in the criminal field based
on Article 30 of Law Number 16 of 2004, has the following authorities:
1. Performing prosecution,
2. Determine judges and court decisions that have obtained permanent legal force,
3. To conduct oversight of the execution of conditional criminal decisions, supervising

illegal decisions and post-conditional decisions;
4. Conduct investigations into certain criminal acts based on the law;

Tegha Arjuharrido Rahmardiko, Anis Rifai, Anas Lutfi

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 292

5. Complete specific case files and conduct additional examinations before being
transferred to the court, which is coordinated with investigators in its
implementation.

Law number 16 of 2004 does not regulate how the prosecutor's authority
determines a person to be a suspect and how the prosecutor's authority detains
corruption suspects. While the provisions for a person to be made a suspect are
stipulated in Article 1, paragraph 14 of Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the suspect should be suspected of being a criminal offender
because of his actions or circumstances based on preliminary evidence.

The determination of suspects with 2 (two) pieces of evidence is still in the grey
area when determining how investigators obtain them; it could be that the suspect is
framed by making evidence or when there are administrative errors that can cause
someone to be entangled in a legal case. The Constitutional Court has revealed that the
Criminal Code does not have a check and balance system for determining suspects by
investigators because there is no mechanism to verify the accuracy of how investigators
obtain evidence. As stated by Constitutional Judge Anwar Usman in Hanifah (2015), the
Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code has not fully applied the principle of due process
of law because the actions of police officers in searching and finding evidence cannot be
verified how to obtain evidence.

In the absence of clear regulations regarding the determination of suspects and the
detention of suspects, the prosecutor's office should be more careful in determining
suspects because it can defame and damage the dignity and dignity of a person. The
decision of the prosecutor's office to detain a person without reason or error or
application of the law can be countersued by its citizens by Article 95 paragraph 1 of
Law No. 8 of 1981, namely suspects, defendants, or convicts have the right to claim
damages for being arrested, detained, prosecuted and tried or subjected to other actions,
without reasons based on law or because of errors regarding their person or the
established law.

In the USU Law of Journal journal written by (Masinambow, 2022), the decision
to determine the status of a suspect may be invalid and not based on the law by
considering the principle of having fulfilled the aim of seeking justice in determining
the pretrial object.

Before granting a detention order, the prosecutor's office should consider whether
the person is innocent because the prosecutor's decision to detain an innocent person
violates human rights, harms society, and violates the law's purpose to protect citizens
and achieve justice. This happens because there are still many regulations protecting the
rights of suspects, defendants, and convicts that have not been regulated as rights but are
applied as guidelines for administering justice. This has led to differences in perception
among investigators and public prosecutors who do not need to abide by the regulation
because it only regulates the conduct of justice. Human rights protection should be
carried out from the start of the investigation stage to something other than the
education stage (Kaligis, 2006).

Legal Analysis Of The Determination Of Corruption Suspects Land Compensation For The
Construction Of The Padang Toll Road

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 293

Thus, the author concludes that no definite legal provision exists for the
prosecution to determine suspects. The determination of suspects has so far remained in
a grey area as there is no explicit provision on "preliminary evidence" to base the
designation of suspects (Sovianti, 2019).
2. Judge's Consideration in Deciding Corruption Matters Indemnity for Padang

Sicincin Toll Road Development
The beginning of this case was because some people in Nagari Parit Malintang

area, Enam Lingkung district, Padang Pariaman regency, West Sumatra Province
claimed land included in the construction trade of the Pekanbaru - Padang toll road,
Padang - Sicincin section. They, together with Wali Nagari Parit Malintang as a
member of P2T, Head of DLHPKPP, Head of Task Force A, Head of Task Force B
Implementation of Land Acquisition for the Construction of the Padang - Pekanbaru
Toll Road Section of the Kapalo Hilalang-Sicincin-Lubuk Alung-Padang Section (Sta
4+200 - Sta 36+600) in Padang Pariaman Regency, West Sumatra Province, and the
Head of the Regional Office of BPN West Sumatra Province, who is also a member of
P2T, is considered by the Prosecutor's Office to have committed or participated in
committing unlawful acts, namely claiming to be owners and rappers by submitting a
basis for rights to land parcels included in the toll road construction trade, where the
land according to the prosecutor's office has received compensation and is recorded as
an asset of the Padang Pariaman Regency Government so that the community is
considered to have no rights to the land. However, on the land claimed by the
community, they submitted compensation for toll road construction, which has been
implemented.

Thus, by the provisions of Article 27, letter number 2 of Law Number 5 of 1960
concerning Basic Regulations of Agrarian Principles, Article 41 paragraphs (4) and (6)
of Law Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Acquisition for Development in the Public
Interest, these persons are considered to have committed acts of enriching themselves or
others or a corporation that harms the country's finances or economy in the amount of
compensation given or amounting to Rp27,460,213,941.00. Article 41, paragraphs (4)
and (6) of Law Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Acquisition for Development for
Public Interest (Padang Pariaman District Court Decision Number
08/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg and 13/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg).

In the Padang Pariaman District Court Decision Number
08/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg and 13/Pid.Sus.TPK/2022/PN.Pdg, the panel of judges
considered an error in determining local government assets. The land that was
compensated in 2009, where it is currently in dispute, is not compensation for the land
but for its crops and buildings (Wibawa et al., 2022). This can be proven by a Waiver of
Rights, which states that the land parcel was released or handed over with a Statement
Letter and Certificate from the Wali Nagari on May 15, 2009, to the District
Government without compensation for the land except for the plants and buildings on it
for the land to continue the ownership process to BPN Padang Pariaman. Taking into
account the application for the issuance of ownership status to BPN, until this case has

Tegha Arjuharrido Rahmardiko, Anis Rifai, Anas Lutfi

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 294

occurred, there has been no transfer of customary land rights to the Padang Pariaman
Regency Government.

Suppose things could still be improved in determining regional government assets
(Gomgoman Halomoan Simbolon, 2016). In that case, their research explains that legal
certainty of ownership of state land rights in practice still finds obstacles. The obstacles
in question include incorrect land data and land transactions, unclear reasons for
rejection from the relevant agencies, incompatibility with incomplete rules and
regulations, and priority rights for which there is no legal basis, making legal certainty
less. Thus, the panel of judges declared the subsidiary charges unproven and not legally
and conclusively proven guilty of committing a criminal offence.

Conclusion

There is no definite legal provision for the prosecution to determine someone to
be a suspect. The determination of suspects so far is still in the grey realm because the
basis for deciding suspects is preliminary evidence for determining suspects according
to Article 1 Paragraph 14 of Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Still, it needs to be explained precisely how the initial evidence is. The
judges had strong enough grounds to acquit the suspect from the prosecution's
prosecution because it was confirmed that the land-owning community had not received
land compensation. The community only gets compensation for the land and buildings,
while the land will be processed through BPN. However, until the land compensation
for toll roads, the land has yet to be processed for compensation. Still, the local
government has recorded the land in local government assets, which the Prosecutor's
Office uses as evidence for prosecution. Thus, it can be concluded that the judges have a
solid basis for freeing the suspects because they are not corrupt but demand the right to
compensation for their land.

Legal Analysis Of The Determination Of Corruption Suspects Land Compensation For The
Construction Of The Padang Toll Road

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 295

Bibliography

Badgley, Michael A., Kremer, Daniel M., Maurer, H. Carlo, DelGiorno, Kathleen E.,
Lee, Ho Joon, Purohit, Vinee, Sagalovskiy, Irina R., Ma, Alice, Kapilian,
Jonathan, & Firl, Christina E. M. (2020). Cysteine depletion induces pancreatic
tumor ferroptosis in mice. Science, 368(6486), 85–89.

Efendi, Irfan, Prawitasari, Melisa, & Susanto, Heri. (2021). Implementasi Penilaian
Pembelajaran Pada Kurikulum 2013 Mata Pelajaran Sejarah. Prabayaksa: Journal
of History Education, 1(1), 21–25.

Kafara, Safrun. (2020). Analisis Hukum Pelaksanaan Putusan Praperadilan terhadap
Perkara Setya Novanto oleh Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (Nomor 97/Pid.
Prap/2017/PN. Jkt-Sel tanggal 29 September 2017). Jurnal Penegakan Hukum
Dan Keadilan, 1(1), 81–94.

Khairunnisa, Khairunnisa. (2022). BUKU AJAR PENDIDIKAN BUDAYA ANTI
KORUPSI. ZAHIR PUBLISHING.

Masinambow, Valentine. (2022). PENETAPAN TERSANGKA PERKARA TINDAK
PIDANA KORUPSI DALAM PEMBERIAN FASILITAS KREDIT INVESTASI
DAN MODAL KERJA OLEH PT. BANK SULUTGO CABANG LIMBOTO
(STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NOMOR: 13/PID.
PRA/2020/PN/LBO). LEX PRIVATUM, 10(6).

Mokoagow, Addy Putra. (2016). Tinjauan Yuridis terhadap Penetapan Tersangka oleh
Penyidik dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Sesuai Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun
1981 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Lex Crimen, 5(4).

Pratama, Kania Restu, & Apriani, Rani. (2022). Analisis Yuridis Perlindungan Hukum
Terhadap Penerapan Justice Collaborator Dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi
Dana Pensiun PT. Pertamina. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Humaniora, 9(6).

Sholikhati, Nur Indah, & Mardikantoro, Hari Bakti. (2017). Analisis tekstual dalam
konstruksi wacana berita korupsi di Metro TV dan NET dalam perspektif analisis
wacana kritis Norman Fairclough. Seloka: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra
Indonesia, 6(2), 123–129.

Simbolon, Gomgoman, Albisar, Madiasa, Mulyadi, Mahmud, & Leviza, Jelly. (2016).
Analisis Hukum Atas Penetapan Tersangka Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Kaitan
Dengan Wewenang Lembaga Peradilan (Studi Kasus: Perkara Peradilan Dalam
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor: 04/Pid. Prap/2015/PN. Jkt.
Sel.). USU Law Journal, 4(2), 153–164.

Simbolon, Gomgoman Halomoan. (2016). Analisis Hukum Atas Penetapan Tersangka
Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Kaitan Dengan Wewenang Lembaga Praperadilan
(Studi Kasus: Perkara Praperadilan Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta
Selatan Nomor: 04/Pid. Prad/2015/PN. Jkt. Sel.).

Tegha Arjuharrido Rahmardiko, Anis Rifai, Anas Lutfi

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2024 296

https://doi.org/10.31289/jiph.v9i2.7076

Sovianti, Rina. (2019). Analisis Framing: Pemberitaan Penangkapan Kasus Korupsi E-
KTP Setya Novanto di Media Daring Detik. Com dan Kompas. Com. Jurnal
Komunikasi, Masyarakat Dan Keamanan, 1(1).

Wibawa, Sutrisna, Kurniawati, Sekundari Whenida, Baroroh, Umi, Sumarsih, Sumarsih,
Witahari, Witahari, Tantri, Yudi Heriana, Harwati, Rina, Wahyuni, C. H. Hendri,
Kurniawan, Wibisono Yudhi, & Sugiyono, Sugiyono. (2022). DIMENSI-
DIMENSI SOFT SKILL’S DALAM PENDIDIKAN KEPRAMUKAAN. The
Journal Publishing, 3(8), i+-275.