606 

 RECONSTRUCTION OF “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” AS A CRIMINAL 
ACT IN THE LAW ON ERADICATING CORRUPTION IN INDONESIA 

Volume: 3 
Number: 3 
Page: 606 - 628 

1Samsul HUDA, 2Bambang SUGIRI, 3Nurini APRILIANDA, 4Heru R. HADI 
1,2,3,4Doctoral Program Students, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia  
Corresponding author: Samsul Huda 
E-mail: samsuladvokat@gmail.com 

Article History: 
Received: 2022-07-06 
Revised: 2022-08-10 
Accepted: 2022-11-11 

Corruption is a special criminal act, qualified as an ordinary crime but must be 
eradicated in extraordinary ways. In Indonesia, it is not only an extraordinary 
method but also an institution with extraordinary authority formed because 
corruption has become a systemic and systematic disease of society. Criminalizing 
the act of "obstructing the judicial process" is one way to eradicate corruption 
extraordinarily. The positive law has already regulated it, but it needs to be 
strengthened by ratifying UNCAC 2003 so that the norms governing the offense 
can be universally recognized. This study aims to synchronize and harmonize the 
norms that have been regulated in positive law with the new norms regulated in 
UNCAC 2003 to avoid misperceptions in its implementation. The normative 
method is used by examining philosophically and juridically through principles 
and theories that develop and are associated with emerging empirical problems. 
Several legal cases are used to analyze the philosophical and juridical problems 
and to find weaknesses in the "obstruction of justice" offense norm. It needs to be 
reconstructed to ensure legal certainty and justice better. In the end, the goal of 
eradicating corruption can be achieved, without violating the proper criminal 
procedural law and placing interested parties, both from the perspective of the 
perpetrators and victims. 

Keywords: Corruption, Obstruction of Justice, Reconstruction 

 

 

 

Cite this as: HUDA, S., SUGIRI B., APRILIANDA, N., HADI, H.R. (2022) 
“Reconstruction Of “Obstruction Of Justice” As A Criminal Act In The Law On 
Eradicating Corruption In Indonesia.” International Journal of Environmental, 
Sustainability, and Social Sciences, 3 (3), 606 – 628. 

 

INTRODUCTION 
“Obstruction of justice" in the context of corruption is understood as resistance to efforts to 

eradicate corruption, both by suspects/defendants of corruption crimes and other parties with direct 
or indirect interests in corruption cases. Obstruction of justice is a crime related to corruption. 
However, it does not mean that obstruction of justice is qualified as an offense of assistance. Law 
enforcement officials are more comfortable qualifying parties in obstruction of justice cases in the 
cluster of participation offenses (deelneming), which are divided into the roles of actors (pleger), 
intellectual actors (doenpleger) and accompanying actors (medepleger). 

The behavior of obstructing or obstructing the legal/judicial process as the equivalent of the 
word “obstruction of justice” is suspected to be carried out by several parties fighting against the 
legal apparatus, which is aggressively eradicating corruption on all fronts. This form of resistance, 
better known as "corruptors fight back" takes various forms, especially concerning the existence of 
evidence, either by influencing witnesses (keys) or the disappearance or obscuring of other evidence 
as quickly as possible without being able to reach them by law enforcement. 

The relationship between corruption and obstruction of justice needs to be explored more 
deeply because law enforcement officers face obstacles accompanying the link between corruption 
eradication efforts. In addition, an in-depth analysis of norms that have long been known in the 
practice of general criminal justice is adopted in special crimes, especially criminal acts or corruption 
offenses. The scientific questions sought in this research are related to the limits, actors, effectiveness 



 

607 

and strategies for establishing norms and implementing offenses or obstruction of justice within the 
scope of criminal acts or corruption offenses. 

A series of big names who are considered to have carried out obstruction of justice acts are 
Setya Novanto (former Chairman of the Indonesian House of Representatives) in the electronic 
single identity (E-KTP) case, Anggodo Wijoyo which gave rise to sharp conflicts between Police 
Headquarters and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) (known as the Cicak vs. Crocodile 
incident) due to the criminalization of the KPK leadership, the case of Komjen Budi Gunawan 
(Prospective National Police Chief) which gave birth to the Cicak vs. Crocodile war Volume II, the 
case of Wahyu Setiyawan (member of General Election Commission (KPU) which passed Harun 
Masiku (PDIP politician) as a fugitive, the case of Eddy Sindoro (Entrepreneur Group Lippo) and 
Nurhadi (Secretary of the Supreme Court) which involved Advocate Lucas, the case of the transfer 
of land function at Bukit Jonggol involving entrepreneur Kwee Cahyadi Kumala (Suiteng) and the 
Regent of Bogor Rahmat Yasin, the case of Soemarmo HS (Mayor of Semarang) etc. 

Of the many corruption cases, not all led to the stipulation of parties suspected of having 
committed the crime of obstruction of justice, which was then subject to Article 21 of the Anti-
Corruption Law, known as the "article of obstruction of justice". Only Advocate Lucas, Entrepreneur 
Kwee Cahyadi Kumala and Advocate Frederich Yunadi were charged with the aquo article, while 
the others were not. In addition, several cases apply the obstruction of justice article in the corruption 
crimes imposed at the KPK and the Indonesian Attorney General's Office (Kejaksaan Agung RI). The 
question is how big and strong is the intensity of law enforcement officials to use the obstruction of 
justice article in the framework of strengthening and sharpening efforts to eradicate corruption, in 
addition to the application of the core articles of the corruption crime itself. 

Criminalization of the act of "obstructing the judicial process (obstruction of justice)," 
specifically in cases of criminal acts of corruption, is not a new policy because it has been regulated 
in several statutory provisions prior to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal 
Acts of Corruption (Law No. 31/1999) The Anti-Corruption Law) was promulgated, namely Law 
Number 3 of 1971 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. Likewise, during the 
enactment of Law Number 24/Prp/1960 concerning Anti-Corruption, the criminal justice process 
was characterized by efforts to back up perpetrators of corruption so that they would not be 
confronted in the criminal justice process. 

As understood, acts of corruption are behaviors that live and develop as long as humans in 
every era, which are then classified as a disease that must be avoided and even fought at the level of 
society and the state. It must be fought because corruption is very detrimental to the state's finances 
and economy and hinders the growth of national development, which demands high efficiency. 
Corruption does not only have economic implications but has damaged the foundations of the state. 
Therefore, in order to realize a just and prosperous society, it is necessary to take steps to prevent 
and eradicate corruption systematically and sustainably. 

There is no definition or understanding of corruption or criminal acts of corruption from the 
point of view of criminal law, both in statutory regulations that are no longer valid and current 
positive law. In Law No. 24/Prp/1960, which was once applicable, it was only mentioned that 
criminal acts were included in the criminal act of corruption (Article 1), not formulating the 
definition or limits of corruption or corruption. However, state finances or the state economy are 
certainly the main objects of corruption crimes (vide article 2 paragraph (Law of the Republic of 
Indonesia, 1999) and Article 3 (Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended and added to Law Number 20 
of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, from now on referred to as the Corruption 
Law) which lies in attacking legal interests regarding state finances (state wealth in the broadest 



 

608 

sense) and the country's economy. The economic crime side is the main focus to be specifically 
regulated in criminal acts corruption. 

Corruption is no longer a local or a national issue but a transnational one, so it is essential to 
have international cooperation in dealing with it. In addition to the scope of issues and areas, 
eradicating corruption has become a national and international legal policy. It has become a 
reference for every macro policy-making and implementation of positive laws and regulations in 
each country, either in ratifying or modifying different norms. 

One substantial effort to fight corruption is through international cooperation. International 
cooperation in preventing and eradicating criminal acts of corruption must be supported by 
integrity, accountability, and good governance. To realize these ideals, determinations and 
commitments, the Government of Indonesia has been actively involved in the efforts of the 
international community for the prevention and eradication of corruption by signing the United 
Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), 2003 or known as the (United Nations 
Convention Against Corruption, 2003). 

As mentioned earlier, the crime of corruption has damaged the state's foundations and denied 
the principles of democracy, transparency, accountability, integrity, security, and economic and 
political stability. Corruption crime is systematic and detrimental to sustainable development, so it 
requires comprehensive, systematic and sustainable prevention and eradication measures. The 
previous positive law (existent) was considered inadequate to answer this challenge because "what 
is stated in the Criminal Code must not be able to keep up with the times. There are always various 
actions that are not called the Criminal Code, but people feel it is an act that is detrimental and 
against the law (Saleh, 1983). Apart from being a compliment, the new rules related to corruption 
can also be qualified as supporting regulations, both in the formal and material sense (Loqman,  
1991). Furthermore, the spirit to criminalize several norms as a corruption offense, the Corruption 
Act, as inspired by the Cohen vs Lindenbaum case in interpreting acts against civil law known as 
Cohen – Lindenbaum Arrest (Algra & K. Van Duyvendijk, 1983), which states that even though 
giving (bribing) private partners is not regulated existing laws, but later declared a criminal offense 
(corruption). 

So far, the prevention and eradication of corruption in Indonesia have been carried out based 
on special laws and regulations that have been in effect since 1957 and have been amended 5 (five) 
times. After the law was implemented, various obstacles were found, both in terms of the 
formulation of norms and their implementation, so they were considered inadequate. What has not 
been sufficiently regulated in the absence of international cooperation in the issue of returning assets 
resulting from criminal acts of corruption? Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, 
on 18 December 2003, at the United Nations Headquarters, also signed the United Nations (UN) 
Convention on Anti-Corruption adopted by the 58th Session of the General Assembly through 
Resolution Number 58/4 on 31 October 2003 (United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 
2003). 

Corruption is defined from several different perspectives, but from a legal point of view, it is 
based on the nature of being against the law or abusing one's authority, position or power. Even the 
abuse of its influence, even though it is not attached to attributive authority in carrying out its 
actions. The economic point of view is dominance because the core of the corruption offense is the 
loss of state finances or the state economy. Furthermore, the most common type of corruption that 
does not recognize caste or position is bribery, as defined by Andi Hamzah, that "corruption means 
being bribed" (Hamzah, 1995). More specifically, Andi Hamzah gives an exception that people who 
bribe civil servants do not need to be punished because it is considered permissible for people to 



 

609 

give gifts to civil servants as long as they do not aim to neglect their obligations (which is forbidden 
under Article 12B of the current Anti-Corruption Law) (Hamzah, 2012). 

Etymologically the word corruption comes from Latin, namely "corruptio" or "corruptus," 
which later appears in many languages, especially English, namely "corruption", and in Dutch, 
"korruptie", which subsequently also appears in the Indonesian treasury: corruption, which can 
mean "like to be bribed". Corruption can also be juxtaposed with bribery (bribery) which means 
giving/handing over to someone so that the person acts for the giver's benefit. 

To respond to the ingrained KKN behavior, laws and regulations that have the characteristics 
of eradicating corruption and the institutions that deal with it were born. There are 2 (two) laws and 
regulations in the reform era that focus on overcoming efforts to eradicate KKN, namely: 

 

1) Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning State Organizers for KKN that are Clean and Free from Corruption, 
Collusion and Nepotism (KKN), and 

2) Law Number 31 of 1999, amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal 
Acts of Corruption (Corruption Law). 
 

In addition to the legal system and rules, a Corruption Eradication Agency was also formed 
to carry out these regulations more independently than existing law enforcement agencies. 
However, these institutions disbanded because they failed to carry out their functions (Agustina et 
al., 2015). In 2002, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was born, an institution to 
eradicate corruption that is quite successful and feared today. The birth of the KPK is in line with 
the beginning of the reform era, which made KKN the main agenda to be resolved. Even though, in 
reality, after the Reformation Era has been running for so long, the behavior of corruption which 
was originally at the edge and peak of power (during the New Order and the Old Order), shifted 
into the power sub-system along with the distribution of authority to manage the budget in the era 
of regional autonomy. The era of regional autonomy created small kings with the authority and 
power of big budgets, who were then trapped in deviant moral behavior (moral hazard) and 
ultimately tempted and trapped in corrupt behavior. 

To emphasize eradication efforts, corruption is qualified as an extraordinary crime, even 
though the law only states that corruption is qualified as a "crime" without the frills of 
"extraordinary". However, the law emphasizes that corruption must be eradicated in extraordinary 
ways (extraordinary treatment). As mentioned earlier, international cooperation is needed to 
eradicate transnational corruption. To achieve this, it is necessary to have the same legal norms that 
each country must regulate. Thus, The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) 
2003 was born. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia then ratified UCAC through Law No. 
7 of 2006 concerning the Ratification / Ratification of UNCAC in 2003. It is a form of the seriousness 
of the international community that the problems and threats posed by criminal acts of corruption 
undermine democratic institutions and values, ethical values and justice and undermine sustainable 
development and law enforcement. It is related to the era of globalization, which focuses more on 
the activities of governments, interstate institutions, or multinational corporations than on the 
discussion of individual human activities (Harding, 2007). Therefore, international cooperation is 
the answer. 

One of the norms that are regulated and required by UNCAC 2003 to be regulated through a 
legislative body (legislative mandatory) is the criminalization of acts of "obstruction of justice" or 
"obstruction of the judicial process". Chapter III UNCAC 2003 on Crime and Law Enforcement 
regulates the "obstruction of justice" norm. It is further explained in Article 25 of UNCAC 2003, 
which regulates the criminal act of "obstruction of justice", which in whole states: Each State Party 



 

610 

shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offenses 
when committed intentionally: 

 

a) The use of physical force, threats or intimidation or the promise, offering or giving of an undue 
advantage to induce false testimony or to interfere in the giving of testimony or the production of 
evidence in a proceeding to the commission of offenses established by this Convention; 

b) The use of physical force, threats or intimidation to interfere with official duties by a justice or law 
enforcement official to the commission of offenses established by this Convention. Nothing in this 
subparagraph shall prejudice the right of States Parties to have legislation that protects other categories 
of the public official. 
 

The Indonesian government has committed to regulating the norms of "obstruction of justice" 
in the anti-corruption laws and regulations. It has already been regulated in 2 (two) laws, namely 
Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption (the Anti-
Corruption Law) and previously in the Criminal Code (KUHP). The formulation of Article 21 of the 
Corruption Act, which regulates the offense of "obstruction of justice" is: 

 

"Everyone who intentionally prevents hinders, or thwarts directly or indirectly the investigation, 
prosecution, and examination in court against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases, 
shall be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 12 years. And or a 
minimum fine of Rp. 150 million and a maximum of Rp. 600 million." 
 

Furthermore, almost the same norms are also regulated in Article 216 of the Criminal Code 
and Article 221 Paragraph (Law of the Republic of Indonesia, 1999) but what is more in line with 
Article 21 of the Corruption Law is Article 221 of the Criminal Code, which states: 

 

I. Threatened with a maximum imprisonment of nine months or a maximum fine of four thousand five 
hundred rupiahs: 

1. any person who intentionally hides a person who has committed a crime or who is being prosecuted 
for a crime, or who assists him/her to avoid being investigated or detained by an official of the judiciary 
or the police, or by another person who, according to the provisions of the law, is continuously or 
temporarily when assigned to carry out policy positions; 

2. any person who, after a crime has been committed and with the intent to cover it up, or to hinder or 
complicate its investigation or prosecution, destroys, removes, hides the objects against which or with 
which the crime was committed or traces of other crimes, or withdraws them from examinations 
carried out by judicial or police officials or by other people, who according to the provisions of the law 
are continuously or temporarily entrusted with carrying out policy positions. 

II.  The above rules do not apply to people who commit such acts to avoid or prevent the danger of 
prosecution against a blood relative, by marriage in a straight line, a second or third-degree deviant line, 
or against their husband/wife or ex-husband/wife."  
 

METHOD 
This research uses normative research methods (or legal research) to find philosophical values, 

constructions, relevant legal rules, legal principles, and legal doctrines to answer the problems the 
author wants to explore. In general, normative research (legal research) is a process of finding the 
rule of law, legal principles, and legal doctrines to answer the legal issues faced. The author uses 4 
(four) approaches, including:  

1. The statutory approach, by examining the laws and regulations relevant to the research theme, 
explores the conformity and contradictions of norms with one another.  



 

611 

2. The conceptual approach starts from the opinions (postulates) of legal experts that develop from 
time to time, both in terms of substance and point of view, to find new ideas or ideas relevant 
to the issues you want to apply. Extracted by the author.  

3. Case approach by analyzing corruption cases relevant to the themes and legal issues the author 
wants to explore. There are 3 (three) relevant legal cases, as mentioned in the previous 
description.  

4. Comparative approach, by comparing laws or other legal sources, either in the form of judges' 
decisions or expert opinions from abroad, which discuss the same problem, to see the 
similarities and differences relevant to legal issues the author is exploring. 

 
RESULT AND DISCUSSION 

Qualification of Obstruction of Justice as a Crime. Obstruction of Justice is a term of legal 
terminology derived from Anglo-Saxon literature. In Indonesian criminal law, a doctrine is a 
criminal act obstructing the legal process (United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2003). 
Obstruction of Justice is also an act that hinders the legal process being carried out by law 
enforcement officers (in this case, the police, prosecutors, judges, and advocates) against witnesses, 
suspects, and defendants (Agustina et al., 2015). The qualification of Obstruction of Justice as a 
criminal act is because the act opposes and breaks through law enforcement which has an impact on 
disrupting the ongoing legal process by delaying, hindering, influencing witnesses, eliminating 
other evidence, thwarting or even intervening in law enforcement officers who are currently under 
investigation. Process evidence in criminal law in the investigation, prosecution, and examination 
at trial. 

Following the term a criminal act or criminal act, of course, the act must meet the requirements 
so that the act or act committed can be qualified as a criminal act. These conditions are usually 
referred to as the elements of a crime. So a person can be subject to a criminal if the activity meets 
the requirements of a criminal act (strafbaarfeit). There are several views on the elements of a crime. 
According to Sudarto, the notion of elements of a crime should be distinguished from the definition 
of elements of a crime as stated in the formulation of the law. The first definition (elements) is 
broader than the second (elements). For example, the elements (in a narrow sense) of ordinary theft 
are listed in Article 362 of the Criminal Code (Sudarto, 1990). According to Lamintang, every 
criminal act in the Criminal Code can generally be described as subjective and objective elements. 
What is meant by "subjective" elements? Are elements attached to or related to the perpetrator and 
include everything in his heart? Whereas what is meant by "objective" elements are elements that 
have to do with circumstances, namely the circumstances in which the perpetrator's action must be 
carried out (Lamintang, 1984). 

The opinions of criminal law experts regarding the elements of a crime (strafbaarfeit) are 
divided into two schools, namely the monistic and dualistic schools. Monistic scholars can conclude 
that there is no separation between criminal acts (criminal acts) and criminal responsibility (criminal 
responsibility). In the monistic flow, when looking at whether a person can commit a criminal act, it 
is necessary to see whether that person can be held accountable or not. If you cannot be held 
accountable, you cannot be punished. In this case, the monistic school sees all the conditions for the 
existence of a crime as being the nature of the act. It provides the principles of understanding that 
in the sense of an act/criminal act, it includes prohibited acts (criminal acts) and criminal 
liability/mistake (Moeljatno, 2015). Therefore, in a monistic view, the elements of criminal 
responsibility concerning the perpetrator of the offense include (Muladi & Priyatno, 2010). 

 



 

612 

1) The ability to be responsible, namely being able to understand the consequences that are contrary to public 
order indeed; 

2) Able to realize that the act is contrary to public order and able to determine the will to act; 
3) The ability is cumulative, meaning that if only one of the responsible abilities is not fulfilled, a person is 

considered irresponsible. 
 

In contrast to the monastic school, the dualistic flow in formulating the limits of criminal acts 
separates criminal acts (criminal act) from criminal responsibility (criminal responsibility). A 
criminal act must consist of outward elements (facts) by the act of behavior and the consequences 
caused by it. These two things will give rise to events in the natural world (the world). Because the 
dualistic flow is separated, the definition of a criminal act does not include criminal responsibility 
they are (Moeljatno, 2015):  

 

a. Behavior and consequences, for a criminal act, it is usually necessary to have the following behavior and 
consequences: 

b. Certain circumstances or circumstances accompanying the action of the event; 
c. Because these additional conditions are called elements aggravating the crime; 
d. Usually, with the existence of specific actions as formulated with the elements above, the nature of 

abstinence from doing the act is visible and natural. The nature of the unlawful act does not need to be 
formulated again as a separate element or element. 

e. The element against the law in formulating the offense refers to the external or objective condition 
accompanying the act. 

 

Thus, in the view of dualistic criminal law experts, there is a separation between the criminal 
act and criminal responsibility (Sudarto, 1990). It means that the dualistic view in formulating the 
limits of criminal acts only includes actions that meet the formulation as criminal acts by laws and 
regulations. Based on the opinion of Simmons, who also holds a monistic view, he explains the 
formulation of the offense as: (Muladi & Priyatno, 2010).  “Een Strafbaar gestelde onrechmatige 
(wederrechtelijke), met schuld in verband staade handeling vaneen toerekeningsvatbaar person”. (Free 
translation: "An act which is punishable by law, contrary to the law, is committed by a guilty person, 
and that person is held responsible for his actions") 

Based on this formulation, the elements of a crime, according to Simmons, are (Sudarto, 1990):  

1) Human actions (positive or negative, doing or not doing or letting); 
2) Actions that are punishable by a criminal offense (strafbaar gesteld); 
3) Actions against the law (onrechtmatig); 
4) Done by mistake (met schuld in verband staad); 
5) Actions are taken by responsible people (toerekeningsyatbaar persoon). 

Regarding the term a criminal act, Utrecht gives another opinion, in which he recommends 
the use of the term criminal event because the term includes an act (handelen or positive-doen) or 
neglect (verzuim or natalen or niet-doen-negative) as well as its consequences (the circumstances caused 
by the act of neglect) (E. Utrecht, 2003). Meanwhile, Wirjono Projodikoro formulated the term 
"criminal act" which is defined as (Projodikoro, 2003). "An act for which the perpetrator can be 
subject to criminal law". The perpetrator can be said to be the subject of a "criminal act". Then another 
term for a criminal act, according to S.R. Sianturi, is an act of a criminal act which is also defined as, 
which stands for "action" or "actor" meaning that there is a person who commits an action. In 
contrast, the person who commits it is called an "actor". 

The views of criminal law experts who are dualistic regarding the formulation of the offense 
it is as follows (Sudarto, 1990) : 



 

613 

1) H.B. Vos, stated that strafbaarfeit only contains elements of human behavior and is punishable 
by law. 

2) WPJ Pompe, stated that according to positive law, strafbaarfeit is nothing but feit, which is 
punishable by law in the provisions of the law. Hence, the act is an act that is against the law, is 
committed with error and is punishable by punishment. 

In general, the formulation of the offense contains an objective element (related to the act or 
act) and a subjective element (related to the perpetrator or men's rea). The objective element can also 
be in the form of prohibited actions, prohibited consequences, or prohibited conditions. An example 
of a prohibited act is the formulation of the theft offense in Article 362 of the Criminal Code (the act 
of taking). Regarding the prohibited consequences contained in the formulation of the offense of 
murder in Article 338 (consequences in the form of loss of other people's lives). While examples of 
prohibited conditions are contained in Article 281 of the Criminal Code, namely committing acts 
that violate decency "in public places". 

In comparison, the subjective element can be in the form of intentional 
negligence/omission/error (Friedman, 2001). Suppose several formulations of criminal acts are 
categorized as obstruction of justice in the Criminal Code. In that case, several articles in the Criminal 
Code use different phrases with the formulation of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law. In the 
articles of the Criminal Code, the phrase is formulated both as an act and a goal. More details will 
be described as follows (Friedman, 2001) : 

1) As an act: 
a. Article 216 of the Criminal Code formulates: "intentionally preventing, hindering or thwarting 

actions to carry out the law." 
b. Article 222 of the Criminal Code formulates: "intentionally obstructing, obstructing or 

thwarting the examination of corpses for court." 
2) As a goal: 

Article 221 of the Criminal Code formulates: "...to hinder or complicate the examination and 
investigation or prosecution...". From the example of the formulation of the offense above, it can be 
seen that "preventing, hindering or thwarting" in Article 216 and Article 222 of the Criminal Code is 
formulated as an act, so it is also clear what the act is aimed at, namely post-mortem examination 
(Article 222) and action to carry out the law (Article 216). While the phrase in Article 221 of the 
Criminal Code is formulated as a goal, the form of the act is also formulated, namely "to destroy, 
eliminate or damage goods used to commit a crime. 

Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that the Obstruction of Justice, in addition 
to being viewed from his actions which have included an error from the perpetrator which must be 
considered as intentional as a goal, and the act is contrary to the applicable laws and regulations. 
The act can be said to be a crime/criminal act. 

Obstruction of Justice Provisions in the Corruption Eradication Act. Obstruction of Justice, 
as regulated in the Corruption Law, is another criminal act in which obstruction of justice itself does 
not cause direct harm to the state but causes delays in the legal process, especially in eradicating 
ongoing corruption. Interfere with efforts to eradicate corruption. Although it does not have a direct 
impact, the obstruction of the legal process in efforts to eradicate corruption has made Obstruction 
of Justice a barrier which, in the end, also causes losses to the law enforcement process by the state. 
As a result, the potential return of assets from losses to state finances is also disrupted. 

The Corruption Act regulates criminal acts into two types: criminal acts of corruption that are 
detrimental to the state, whose regulation is contained in Chapter II and other crimes related to 
criminal acts of corruption in Chapter III. Obstruction of justice itself is regulated in Article 21 of the 
Corruption Act, which is part of Chapter III. Therefore, Chapter III is not a part that regulates 



 

614 

corruption but regulates other corruption-related crimes. Including Article 21 of the Anti-
Corruption Law in Chapter III, the handling of cases should be the authority of the general criminal 
court, not the court of corruption, and the police and prosecutors are authorized to conduct 
investigations, investigations and prosecutions. 

Conceptual Framework "Reconstruction of "Obstruction of Justice" Delicts". The word 
"Reconstruction" is a combination or combination of 2 syllables; "re" and "construction". "Re" means 
"to return", and "construction" means "to build". If arranged in a straightforward sentence, then 
reconstruction can be interpreted as "rebuilding as before or a new one or "returning to the way it 
was" or "rearranging (drawing) back to what it was (which currently exists). The meaning of 
reconstruction, according to the Big Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI, 2016): 

 

(1) “restore as before” by giving an example of the sentence “reconstruction and construction of new roads 
will be carried out in Jakarta, Bogor, Ciawi. 

(2) “rearranging (depicting)” by giving example sentences; "In the preliminary examination, a reconstruction 
has been made regarding the events of the murder." 
 

It is necessary to reconstruct the norms and meanings of the "obstruction of justice" offense 
because of the many weaknesses, including the unclear interpretation and causing juridical and 
sociological problems in its application. The formulation of the norms of article 21 of the Anti-
Corruption Law is also not in line with the 2003 UNCAC, which still provides additional conditions 
if the norm is implemented. Moreover, the formulation of this offense norm is not included in the 
core corruption offenses but in other types of corruption-related crimes. It gives rise to multiple 
interpretations, is detrimental to justice seekers, and even takes undue victims. Therefore, steps are 
needed to reconstruct the norm and with a solid interpretation that the "obstruction of justice" 
offense is more appropriately qualified as a material-cumulative offense rather than insisting that 
this offense be an alternative-formal offense. 

A material offense is an offense whose formulation focuses on undesirable (prohibited) 
consequences. This offense is said to be completed when the unwanted result has occurred. If not, 
then at most, there are only experiments. Furthermore, formal offenses are offenses whose 
formulation is focused on acts prohibited by law. The embodiment of this offense is deemed to have 
been completed by carrying out the acts stated in the formulation of the offense. 

The offense of "obstruction of justice" has two passions: the spirit of eradicating criminal acts 
of corruption represented by investigators and public prosecutors by providing extensive 
interpretations. Extensive interpretation in the sense that other acts which, although the act is not a 
type (genus) of a criminal act of corruption, because it is closely related to the success or failure of 
the legal apparatus in carrying out the investigation, prosecution and trial process (pro justitia). 
Because it is related to the disruption or smooth running of the investigation, prosecution and trial 
process, the act is considered very relevant to the success or failure of the judicial process. 

On the other hand and vice versa, there is a spirit to defend and even fight accusations/ 
accusations of committing a criminal act of corruption. It is represented by a suspect, even by 
someone who is still a witness (potentially a suspect) with his legal advisor. Of course, a person 
accused of being corrupt has the right to try to avoid or escape the suspicion or accusation in a way 
that, according to the parties who want to escape the suspicion or accusation, is true. 

A fair attitude is needed in providing a proportionate/balanced portion, that the spirit of 
eradicating corruption must be in line with the norms, rights and interests of people accused or 
suspected of being perpetrators of corruption. That the law not only talks about rights and 
obligations but also can determine someone or something capable of having balanced rights and 
obligations. If one of them is more dominant, then the law will be lame, as emphasized by Hans 



 

615 

Kelsen, who said that "there must be something related to duties/authorities and rights (human 
rights)/"there must exist something that has the duty or the right (Kelsen, 2003). 

A major case that has attracted public attention related to the "obstruction of justice" offense is 
the electronic identity (E-KTP) case, which involved several people being suspects. The suspects in 
this case, among others, Dr. Bimanesh Sutarjo (Doctor at Permata Hijau Hospital, Jakarta, EKTP 
Case) , Miryam Yani (Indonesian House of Representative member (DPR) RI Nasdem Faction, were 
charged with violating Article 22 (False Statements, which are still related to the offense of 
"obstruction of justice"). Then the suspect Markus Nari (DPR RI Golkar faction, was charged with 
violating Article 21 of the Cumulative Corruption Law with the offense of corruption in Article 2 
paragraph (Law of the Republic of Indonesia, 1999) in conjunction with Article 3 of the Anti-
Corruption Law). 

Furthermore, the suspect is Frederich Yunadi, Lawyer Setya Novanto (Chairman of the 
Indonesian House of Representatives/Chief of the Golkar Party) in the E-KTP case. In addition to 
the E-KTP case as the core case, which was assessed by Laode Syarif, one of the Corruption 
Eradication Commission (KPK) leaders for the 2014-2019 period, as the most complex case because 
it involved six countries, the case involving Advocate Frederich Yunandi also attracted public 
attention, due to several collisions with the pole. Electricity by the suspect Setya Novanto. In 
addition, there is an "obstruction of justice" case involving Advocate Lucas related to the escape of 
Suspect Eddy Sindoro abroad. In addition, Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law also targets several 
businessmen who are suspected of having committed an "obstruction of justice" crime, including 
Businessman Kwee Cahyadi Kumala in the case of Transfer of Forest Land Functions in Bukit 
Jonggol (Sentul) and Anggodo Widjojo in the Case of the Procurement of an Integrated Radio 
Communication System at the Ministry of Forestry. 

In the panel of judges' consideration, Doctor Bimanesh Sutardjo and Advocate Frederich 
Yunadi conspired to release Suspect Setya Novanto from arrest by issuing a fake medical record. It 
causes the KPK Investigating Team to feel that their work has been hindered and has hampered the 
investigation process. Meanwhile, entrepreneur Kwee Cahyadi Kumala (Suiteng) is considered to 
have committed an act of "obstruction of justice" by influencing witnesses not to say the actual events 
or facts and eliminating evidence in the form of documents related to the alleged case. With the 
influence of witnesses and the transfer/disappearance of documents to another place, the KPK 
Investigating Team felt that its work was hindered. Furthermore, Advocate Lucas was judged to 
have committed an act of "obstruction of justice" because he advised Suspect Eddy Sindoro to stay 
abroad. After all, if the person concerned returned to Indonesia, it would be troublesome for his 
superiors. Advocate Lucas's suggestion made the KPK Investigative Team feel their work was 
hindered. 

However, the KPK Investigation Team and Public Prosecutor completed their work at the 
investigation and prosecution levels of the three cases. Likewise, at the trial level, the Panel of Judges 
still succeeded in completing the trial and giving a guilty verdict until the case had permanent legal 
force. The formulation of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law needs to be reconstructed towards 
a material offense by considering the consequences compared to a formal offense, which only 
requires the fulfillment of the elements of the article, which are subjective and immeasurable. Many 
legal practitioners engaged in criminal corruption law, especially advocates or internal lawyers, feel 
there is a dilemma and uncertainty in carrying out their profession when they must accompany and 
represent clients in corruption cases. On the one hand, it must provide maximum assistance and 
defense. However, on the other hand, it is faced with limitations that are still multi-interpreted, what 
an advocate can and cannot do to defend clients' interests. 



 

616 

The pros and cons of several parties indicate that this "obstruction of justice" offense must be 
reconstructed. Apart from losing their independence, advocates feel threatened in their profession. 
The offense of "obstruction of justice" also targets and threatens other parties, including witnesses 
who have the potential to become suspects. Witnesses who, because they feel threatened, or 
pressured during the investigation, investigation or trial, intentionally or unintentionally commit 
acts considered or concluded to hinder or hinder. Spontaneous reactions of witnesses who feel 
threatened include trying to eliminate evidence (letters, communication tools, CCTV, etc.), running 
away, skipping calls, etc. These things are often done unconsciously by many of these parties. It 
could be because of their initiative because of fear. It could also be due to the superior's order to 
intentionally remove certain items indicated to be difficult for his position in the future. 

With several opinions and points of view on the offense, it is necessary to interpret certain 
types of offenses. The interpretation of the type of offense is one of the research tools for the author 
because, as described above, in the norm of the offense of "obstruction of justice," there are problems 
with quite significant juridical implications. Suppose the interpretation of this offense only places it 
as a formal-alternative offense, where the action is only seen from the fulfillment of the article 
elements. In that case, it will cause injustice and human rights violations for witnesses, suspects, or 
parties suspected of providing assistance or participation. Parties who do not know anything about 
the problem, by inadvertently helping the suspect, can get into trouble. 

On the other hand, if the norm in this article is qualified as a material-cumulative offense, even 
though the act fulfills the elements of the article, it cannot immediately be qualified as an 
"obstruction of justice" if it does not have a significant effect. Significant consequences, in the sense 
that all actions that hinder the judicial process fail the investigation, prosecution and judicial process. 
To determine the failure or failure of the judicial process, of course, can vary. It could be that there 
are small obstacles to the investigation and prosecution process or also during the trial. However, 
because a criminal case involves a person being held hostage physically and mentally, disturbances 
should be considered flavoring and interest. Law enforcement officials have been equipped with 
privileges in the form of great power to coerce other legal actions, so it is too trivial to get a minor 
disturbance to directly use the Palugada article "obstruction of justice" to suppress it. 
  “Obstruction of Justice” Arrangements in Some Countries. To find out more about the 
regulation and sound norms for obstruction of justice offenses, the author researched by taking the 
example of 4 countries that regulate the aquo offense. The four are the United States, the 
Netherlands, South Korea and Poland. The choice of the United States of America represents a 
country with an Anglo-Saxon legal system or common law, while the Netherlands is because that 
country is a country that has much influence on the value of laws and regulations in Indonesia. The 
Netherlands also represents the Continental European legal system or civil law. Furthermore, to 
complete the repertoire and comparison of norms, the author also conveys the norms of obstruction 
of justice regulated in Poland and South Korea, which the author believes to have progressivity in 
substance, structure, and culture or legal culture quite advanced. 

The Obstruction of Justice Norms in the United States. In the United States, a particular 
chapter regulates actions to obstruct legal proceedings. This Obstruction Of Justice is regulated in 
the United States' Criminal Code (KUHP), namely the United State Model Penal Code/18 USC 
Chapter 73 Article 1501. This article clearly describes the patterns of obstruction of justice. Legal 
process (obstruction of justice) can be subject to criminal. The form of obstruction of justice is 
regulated in the United State Model Penal Code/ 18 USC Chapter 73 starting from Articles 1501 to 
1521, which regulates explicitly obstruction of justice, namely (Agustina et al., 2015): 
a. Disclaim, reject, or oppose law enforcement officials; 
b. Threatening and using violence directly or indirectly or through letters to law enforcement officers; 



 

617 

c. Commit violence and injure law enforcement officials in the relevant cases; 
d. Attempting to influence the actions or decisions of a jury; 
e. Eliminate, hide, destroy, alter or falsify recorded evidence; 
f. Influence, deny or hinder or hinder the investigation process; 
g. Stealing, deleting or altering court records, written records related to court proceedings and others; 
h. Stealing or altering records of court proceedings or providing false guarantees; 
i. Disrupt, hinder, or hinder the administration of justice, or influence any judge, jury, witness or judicial 

officer in carrying out their duties; 
j. Demonstrating both in court and court as well as at the residence of judges, jurors and other law enforcers; 
k. Recording, listening to, or observing the voting process by the judges; 
l. Obstructing a court order by threatening or using violence and intentionally preventing, denying, 

obstructing or disturbing; 
m. Bribery or obstruct, delay or prevent law enforcement officials from violating criminal laws; 
n. Conspiring to hinder the enforcement of criminal law against illegal gambling businesses; 
o. Threatening the safety of witnesses, victims and informants by killing or attempting to kill or using 

physical force to prevent testimony or attendance at the trial; 
p. Influence witnesses, victims and informants to delay or not give testimony and not to submit evidence to 

officers or courts; 
q. Prevent communication between witnesses, victims or informants with law enforcement; 
r. Taking revenge against witnesses, victims or informants by killing or attempting to kill or disturbing the 

lives of witnesses, victims and informants; 
s. harass the victim or witness; 
t. Make efforts to influence, hinder or impede federal auditors in the performance of official duties for persons, 

entities or programs receiving more than $100,000; 
u. Obstructing the examination of financial institutions; 
v. Take efforts to prevent, obstruct, mislead or delay the communication of information or records relating to 

federal health care offenses or criminal investigators; 
w. Damaging, altering, or falsifying records in the investigation and bankruptcy; 
x. Destroy or damage the company's audit files; 
y. Making false or defamatory claims against federal judges.” 

Observing the formulation of the obstruction of justice offense in the United States, it can be 
said that it is very detailed and varied. Suppose it is related to the type of offense. In that case, the 
formulation of the offense above is a material offense because it has explained what actions are 
qualified and what objects are targeted related to the formulation of obstruction of justice acts. 
Several formulations have fulfilled what was required in UNCAC 2003, for example, the 
formulations of "threatening witnesses and victims" and "giving promises of money prizes to law 
enforcement officers" in smoothing out the obstruction of justice. As a very developed country, the 
United States is very brave to formulate an obstruction of justice act or offense, even though it has 
the potential to get resistance from the obstruction of justice perpetrator from the side of evidence 
later. It is different from countries that are not yet relatively developed, both in terms of rules and 
legal awareness. Therefore, the formulation of offenses is often general and only qualifies norms 
instead of providing detailed and objective formulations. 

Holland. As a country with the same civil law system as Indonesia, it regulates obstruction of 
justice in the Dutch Penal Code Art 184 (Article 184 of the Dutch Criminal Code). Similar to 
Indonesia, the Netherlands also does not place the act of obstructing the legal process in a special 
section in the country's criminal regulations, which only relates to articles that elementally enter into 
obstruction of justice. The crime of obstruction of justice in the Netherlands as regulated in the Dutch 
Penal Code Art 184 or the Dutch Criminal Code in article 184 in the form: 



 

618 

1. Disobeying orders made by public officials of criminal law enforcement; 
2. Prevent or deny actions by public officials who enforce criminal law." 

If we look closely, the formulation of the obstruction of justice offense in the Netherlands is 
even more general than the formulation in Indonesia. What is meant by the formulation of the 
sentence "disobeying official orders" is certainly very abstract. Is the order of a public official a right 
or wrong rule that must be followed without being refuted (without reserve). Likewise, the sentence 
"prevent and deny law enforcement actions" is even more abstract. Is it possible that actions that 
only qualify for prevention and deny the actions of the apparatus cause the perpetrator to deserve 
to be punished for obstruction of justice? From the two formulations, the author concludes that the 
offense of obstruction of justice in the Netherlands is formal because there is no causality in the 
manifestation of the aquo act. As the United States has developed, both in terms of rules and legal 
awareness, the Netherlands is also in the same position. The crime rate in the Netherlands is 
relatively very low. Many prisons are empty, which shows a high level of legal awareness. Therefore, 
it could be that the formulation of the obstruction of justice offense has gone up a grade because 
there is no need for a detailed crime formulation. General formulas are considered much more 
effective and applicable. 

South Korea. Several articles regulating obstruction of justice in the Penal Code of Korea or 
the 'KUHP' of the South Korean state are placed and regulated in a special chapter. The Penal Code 
of Korea describes several patterns of obstruction of justice that can be criminalized. The obstruction 
of justice in Korea's national criminal law is regulated in Chapter VII of the Penal Code, starting 
from article 136 to article 144 (Agustina et al., 2015). Regulations regarding the criminal act of 
obstruction of justice are not only contained in one chapter but are also regulated sporadically in 
other chapters and articles. 
In contrast to Indonesia, of all the arrangements for obstruction of justice in South Korean criminal 
law, no article specifically regulates obstruction of justice in corruption cases. Obstruction of justice 
in criminal law in South Korea is only generally regulated. However, South Korea's "obstruction of 
justice offense" is also formulated in detail, unlike in Indonesia. The forms of obstruction of justice 
are regulated in Article 128 of the Korean Criminal Code and CHAPTER VII Articles 136-144, namely 
(Agustina et al., 2015) :  
a) Intimidating voters, candidates or people seeking to be candidates in elections 
b) Using violence or intimidation against public officials involved in carrying out their duties 
c) Interfering with the execution of duties by public officials through fraud 
d) Creating interference or insulting the judiciary 
e) Interfering with the performance of the duties of a public prosecutor 
f) Damaging seals, attachments or executable files 
g) Law enforcement public officials who take action to open confidential documents 
h) Hide documents 
i) Destroying public office facilities 
j) Hiding evidence 
k) Threatening with dangerous weapons 
l) Injuring public officials, both prosecutors, police judges and others. 

If we look closely at the formulation of the obstruction of justice offense in Korea, it looks 
simple and detailed. It has been explained that the actions and objects related to the formulation of 
the offense have been explained. Interestingly, there are similarities in the sound of the offense 
norms in Indonesia, including those related to the destruction and disappearance of evidence in 
criminal cases. In addition, it also regulates the formulation of conditional acts, where the 
obstruction of justice must be accompanied by intimidation or threats, both physical and 
psychological. The author observes that the formulation of obstruction offense in Korea is of a 



 

619 

material type, meaning that all actions must have a consequence dimension to fulfill the perfection 
of the perpetrator's actions. As a relatively developed country, both in terms of rules and legal 
awareness, South Korea is brave enough to formulate simple, detailed and objective offenses because 
the crime rate in Korea is minimal, so legislators do not need to take cover behind the formulation 
of general offenses. 

Poland. The state of Poland regulates obstruction of justice as part of the violation of justice. 
In the Polish Criminal Code, the chapter that regulates judicial violations, namely Chapter 33, 
Offenses Against the Administration of Justice (Articles 247-259). The Polish state regulates the 
norms of "obstruction of justice" in detail compared to Indonesia. Included as offenses regarding the 
administration of justice is (House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia) : 
a) False oath or witness giving false testimony (Article 247); 
b) false reports (Article 248); 
c) Creation of false evidence; 
d) Concealing evidence regarding the innocence of the suspect (Article 250); 
e) Provide information to the competent authority regarding an offense which he knows that the offense does 

not exist; 
f) Obstructing the judiciary by assisting the accused in releasing criminal responsibility, for example, 

replacing the suspect or the perpetrator with a crime (Article 252). 
g) Perform violence or threats against witnesses (Article 253); 
h) Does not provide information about an offense, for example, where the perpetrator is (Article 254); 
i) Announce the results of the preliminary examination before the trial (Article 255); 
j) Escape from deprivation of liberty, places of social readjustment, etc. (Article 256); 
k) Freeing or facilitating persons deprived of their liberty to escape (Article 257); 
l) To interfere with the court's decision to dispose of, damage, hide etc., objects that have been confiscated 

or will be confiscated (Article 258); 
m) Failure to comply with court decisions regarding the prohibition of occupying a position, carrying out 

activities, operating a motorized vehicle (Article 259).” 
If we look closely at the formulation of the obstruction of justice offense in Poland, it is also 

very detailed. It has been explained that the formulation of the act and the objects associated with 
the formulation of the offense have been explained. Interestingly, there are similarities between the 
norms of offenses in Indonesia, including those related to perjury, false statements, creation of false 
evidence, and concealment of evidence. Like UNCAC 2003, Poland also stipulates conditions for 
obstruction of justice offenses, for example committing violence or threats against witnesses (Article 
253). The author observes that the formulation of the obstruction offense in Poland is also of a 
material type, meaning that all actions must have a consequence dimension to fulfill the perfection 
of the perpetrator's actions. Also interesting is Article 252, which has similarities with Indonesia, 
namely "Obstructing the judiciary by helping the defendant release criminal responsibility, for 
example, replacing the suspect or the perpetrator serving a sentence (Article 252)". As a country that 
is also relatively developed, both in terms of regulations and legal awareness, Poland is certainly 
brave enough to formulate simple, detailed and objective offenses because the crime rate in Poland 
is very minimal, so legislators do not need to take cover behind the formulation of general offenses. 

Analysis of “Obstruction of Justice” Offenses Based on UNCAC 2003. As mentioned several 
times in the discussion, international cooperation is needed to eradicate transnational corruption. 
To achieve this, it is necessary to have the same legal norms that each country must regulate. Thus, 
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) 2003 was born. The Government of 
the Republic of Indonesia then ratified UNCAC through Law No. 7/2006 concerning the Ratification 
/ Ratification of UNCAC in 2003. With the 2003 UNCAC ratification step, the Government of 
Indonesia must consistently synchronize and harmonize obstruction of justice norms in its national 



 

620 

law. As it is known that the UNCAC obstruction of justice norm was born in 2003, and its ratification 
was carried out in 2006. 

Meanwhile, national law has already regulated the obstruction of justice norm in various laws, 
especially the Anti-Corruption Law. Law Number 3 of 1971 had already regulated the norm of 
obstruction of justice before Law Number 31 of 1999 was born. Therefore, synchronization and 
harmonization are absolute if Indonesian national law is universally recognized. 

UNCAC 2003 is a concrete manifestation of the seriousness of the international community 
that the problems and threats posed by criminal acts of corruption damage democratic institutions 
and values, ethical values and justice and disrupt sustainable development and law enforcement. It 
is related to the era of globalization, which is more focused on the activities of governments, 
interstate institutions, or multinational companies rather than discussing individual human 
activities. Therefore, international cooperation is the answer. International cooperation is needed to 
consistently integrate and match norms and law enforcement against this obstruction of justice 
offense in each country so that a pattern and model of law enforcement for obstruction of justice 
norms is obtained that avoids disparities in regulation and enforcement. 

One of the norms regulated and required by UNCAC 2003 to be regulated through a 
legislative body (legislative mandatory) is the criminalization of acts of "obstruction of justice" or 
"obstruction of the judicial process". Chapter III UNCAC 2003 on Crime and Law Enforcement 
regulates the "obstruction of justice" norm. It is further explained in Article 25 of UNCAC 2003, 
which regulates the criminal act of "obstruction of justice" and fully states: Each State Party shall 
adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offenses when 
committed intentionally: 
a) The use of physical force, threats or intimidation or the promise, offering or giving of an undue advantage 

to induce false testimony or to interfere in the giving of testimony or the production of evidence in a 
proceeding to the commission of offenses established by this Convention; 

b) The use of physical force, threats or intimidation to interfere with official duties by a justice or law 
enforcement official to the commission of offenses established by this Convention. Nothing in this 
subparagraph shall prejudice the right of States Parties to have legislation that protects other categories of 
public officials. 

From several formulations of Article 25 of UNCAC 2003, the author emphasizes the 
explanation in UNCAC 2003 Article 25, which states that: "Obstruction of justice" offense stipulates 
that the act must be accompanied by the influence of other parties in the form of violence, threats of 
violence or intimidation to witnesses. It is related to the types of corruption crimes, namely crimes 
committed by people in power (white-collar crimes), modes of corruption that are difficult to trace 
or prove, scattered evidence, both physical and optical, as well as the potential for the disappearance 
of evidence that flies with time. 

Besides that, synchronizing the substance of norms is also a mandate of Law Number 7 of 
2006 (UNCAC Ratification 2003), which states: The significance of the Convention for Indonesia is 
the harmonization of national laws and regulations in the prevention and eradication of corruption 
by this Convention. With the ratification of UNCAC 2003, it is a logical consequence to reconstruct 
the offense of obstruction of justice article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law. 

Analysis of “Obstruction of Justice” Offenses Based on Criminal (Corruption) Cases. To 
analyze the formulation of the second problem in this research, namely "Why is Reconstruction of 
Obstruction of Justice Delict Required in the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption", 
the author will present a juridical analysis of 2 decisions on obstruction of justice cases in corruption 
crimes that have legal force. Permanent (inkracht) and 1 (one) decision of the Constitutional Court 
on the application for Judicial Review Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication 



 

621 

of Criminal Acts of Corruption at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. After that, 
the author will discuss the juridical reasons and the urgency of why steps are needed to reconstruct 
the aquo article. The cases are as follows: 
1) Sus-TPK/2018/PN.JKT.PST, on behalf of the Convicted Advocate Lucas. 
2) Decision Number 08/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.JKT.PST. On behalf of the convicted entrepreneur 

Kwee Cahyadi Kumala. 
Decision Number 90/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PN.JKT.PST, on behalf of the Convicted Advocate 

Lucas. Defendant Lucas, together with Dina Soraya, from 14 December 2016 to 29 August 2018, in 
various places that are still within the jurisdiction of the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta 
District Court, have committed or participated in committing, intentionally, preventing, obstructing 
or thwart directly or indirectly investigations of suspects or witnesses in corruption cases, namely 
suggesting Eddy Sindoro as a suspect in a corruption crime not to return to Indonesia, and seeking 
Eddy Sindoro to enter and leave Indonesian territory without an immigration check to avoid 
examination or other legal action. Against Eddy Sindoro by KPK investigators. The actions of 
Defendant Lucas violated Article 21 of the Corruption Act in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 
(Law of the Republic of Indonesia, 1999) of the First Criminal Code. 

The suspect, Eddy Sindoro, 4 December 2016, wanted to return to Indonesia to face the legal 
process at the KPK but was advised by Defendant Lucas not to return to Indonesia. Defendant Lucas 
also advised Eddy Sindoro to relinquish his Indonesian citizenship, which was assisted by Chua 
Chwee Chye alias Jimmy alias Lie to produce a fake Dominican Republic passport on behalf of Eddy 
Handoyo Sindoro. On 7 August 2018, Eddy Sindoro left for Bangkok from Malaysia but was arrested 
by Malaysian Immigration officers for using a fake passport. On 16 August 2018, Eddy Sindoro was 
found guilty and had to be expelled from Malaysia to Indonesia, given his original country's color 
status. 

In the conclusion of his Charge Letter number 28/TUT.01.06/24/03/2019, the Public 
Prosecutor of the Corruption Eradication Commission believes that Defendant Lucas has violated 
the single indictment prepared and read out. The KPK Public Prosecutor demanded that Defendant 
Lucas be sentenced to prison for 12 (twelve) years and a fine of Rp. Six hundred million rupiahs, 
subsidiary to 6 months in prison. The Panel of Judges in the case of Defendant Lucas agrees with the 
description of the letter of demand by the Public Prosecutor of the KPK and thinks that the defense 
of Defendant Lucas and his legal counsel is unfounded and must be declared unacceptable. The 
Panel of Judges finally decided on the case of Defendant Lucas with a verdict; (1) Sentencing 
Defendant Lucas for 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rp.600 million subsidiary 6 (six) months in prison. 
Meanwhile, Defendant Eddy Sindoro was found guilty and sentenced to prison for 4 (four) years.  

If we look closely, in this case, all the perpetrators of the core corruption offenses have 
completed the investigation, prosecution and trial process without any significant obstacles. It 
means that if the article is qualified as an alternative formal offense, then whatever the evidence and 
the strength of the evidence are difficult to measure objectively because it is only based on the 
assessment or subjectivity of the KPK investigators who feel hindered by the investigation process. 
After all, they failed to arrest and detain Eddy Sindoro when he came from Malaysia.  

On the other hand, if this article offense is qualified as a cumulative material offense, the 
measure is whether the investigator fails or succeeds in carrying out an investigation. So, the public 
prosecutor continues the prosecution and examination process at trial because Eddy Sindoro can be 
investigated and prosecuted, even though it begins with the surrender of the person concerned 
voluntarily to face the legal problems that ensnared him because this is a different story if Eddy 
Sindoro stays in Bangkok, Thailand and does not want to fulfill the summons of the KPK 
investigators for a process investigation. So this is perfect evidence of Lucas' actions which 



 

622 

intentionally prevented, hindered and thwarted the process of investigation, prosecution and 
examination in court, either directly or indirectly, in the corruption case against the suspect (Eddy 
Sindoro). 

Decision Number 08/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.JKT.PST. On behalf of the convicted 
entrepreneur Kwee Cahyadi Kumala. Regarding the implementation of Obstruction Of Justice in 
Article 21 in the decision Number 08/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.JKT.PST. Several considerations 
explain the argument that the Defendant (Convicted Kwee Cahyadi Kumala) has hindered and 
prevented KPK investigators from investigating corruption cases on behalf of FX. YOHAN YAP is 
because KPK investigators need more time to carry out investigations. In this consideration, it was 
explained that the defendant transferred the documents, ordered witnesses to give false information, 
provided a cell phone that the KPK could not tap, and ordered to make PPJB so that it seemed as if 
there was a business transaction. 

However, the next question is whether the series of actions accused of the defendant resulted 
in the termination or obstruction of the investigation, prosecution and examination in court. Even 
getting to the stage of the judge's decision on the results of the examination in court does not impact 
the FX case being unproven. YOHAN YAP, which resulted in being acquitted by the panel of judges. 
It means the extent of the impact of the actions alleged to the defendant leads to the decision of the 
panel of judges that affects the FX case. YOHAN YAP, the benchmark is not clear. The decision also 
explains that the application of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law must be cumulative, not 
alternative so that it is not only aimed at the investigation process. However, it must also impact the 
prosecution and examination process in court, even up to the decision of the panel of judges on the 
FX case. YOHAN the YAP. The trial proved that from the prosecution process to the examination in 
court on behalf of FX. YOHAN YAP went smoothly without any obstacles or obstacles until the 
panel of judges decided on Defendant FX. YOHAN YAP is guilty of corruption. 

From this case, it can be seen that the actions of Defendant (Convict Kwee Cahyadi Kumala) 
were found to have hindered and obstructed the legal process against Defendant FX. YOHAN YAP 
did not see the impact. Applying Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law should be compiled 
cumulatively so that there is no criminalization of someone who is considered to have hindered and 
hindered the investigation level, even at the stage of the prosecution to examination at trial. There 
was no impact from 'obstructing and hindering' until the judges' decision was issued. How long is 
the time that is hindered at the investigation level? It must be made clearer how much investigators 
should usually need time to procrastinate for how long there must be benchmarks so that there is 
no arbitrariness among law enforcement officers, especially investigators. 

Even in the decision Number 08/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.JKT.PST. Judges Members III and 
IV are concerned that investigators who work unprofessionally take advantage of the opportunity 
to find excuses by blaming certain parties for obstructing and hindering the investigation process, 
even though the root of the problem arises from the performance of unprofessional investigators 
themselves. Investigators can also confront witnesses who are considered to have given incorrect 
information so that factual information can be obtained, and the investigation time needed by 
investigators takes longer than it should. It degrades the performance of KPK investigators who 
worked hard and professionally until Defendant FX. YOHAN YAP has been found guilty of 
committing a criminal act of corruption; 

What is interesting to observe in the aquo case is the dissenting opinion (DO) of two members 
of the panel of judges, namely Judge Alexander Marwata and Judge Ugo. Judges Members III and 
IV are concerned that investigators who work unprofessionally take advantage of the opportunity 
to find excuses by blaming certain parties for obstructing and hindering the investigation process, 
even though the root of the problem arises from the performance of unprofessional investigators 



 

623 

themselves. It proves that subjectivity in determining that law enforcement officials represented by 
investigators and public prosecutors are prevented, hindered and thwarted is based on feelings, not 
facts. Furthermore, what is even more interesting is that Kwee Cahyadi Kumala has been named a 
suspect in the same case, namely as a giver of gifts or promises (bribes) to the Regent of Bogor 
Rahmat Yasin, whose case is being processed in parallel with the aquo case. As in the case of 
Advocate Lucas, the core perpetrators of the corruption offense also carried out the investigation, 
prosecution and trial process smoothly, without any significant obstacles. 

In a judicial review (PK), the Panel of Judges PK stated that Kwee Cahyadi Kumala was free from 
the indictment of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law because he had the right to defend himself 
from all the legal consequences starting from the time he was named a suspect for giving gifts or 
promises. The Judicial Review Council also agreed with the Petitioner for PK, which in its 
consideration stated:  

(1) Whereas the convict took the actions, as revealed in the Judex Facti examination trial, were not 
actually to hinder the investigation process on behalf of FX Yohan Yap but were aimed at 
protecting the convict himself from being involved in the case of the arrest of FX Yohan Yap;  

(2) That the convict's concern will be involved in the case of the arrest of FX Yohan Yap is very 
reasonable because the convict never gave money to FX Yohan Yap;  

(3) Whereas in practice, Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999, as amended and supplemented by 
Law Number 20 of 2001, can only be imposed on witnesses or third parties who, because of the 
nature of their actions, cannot be charged with a principal crime, so they are only charged with 
Article 21 Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001;  

(4) The opinion of Judges Member III and Member IV in the Judex Facti decision, specifically 
regarding the indictment of Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended and added to by 
Law Number 20 of 2001, is correct and correct. By the non-self-incrimination principle that a 
suspect or defendant has the right to defend himself against the law that threatens him, and the 
act of self-defense for the defendant, it cannot be said to be an act that hinders the process of 
investigation, prosecution and examination at trial as referred to in article 21 of the law. Law 
Number 31 of 1999 as amended and supplemented by Law 20 of 2001;  

(5) Whereas in the trial process, it turned out that the defendant's case, FX Yohan Yap, had proceeded 
smoothly and had been sentenced;  

(6) Therefore, the actions committed by the convict (Kwee Cahyadi Kumala alias Swie Teng) cannot 
be qualified as acts that hinder the Investigation, Prosecution and Examination of Defendant FX 
Yohan Yap. The convict must be released from the First Charge of Article 21 of Law Number 31 
1999 as amended and supplemented by Law 20 of 2001. 

Yuridical Analysis of Both Cases. Referring to the 2 (two) "obstruction of justice" cases that 
ensnared Advocate Lucas and Entrepreneur Kwee Cahyadi Kumala (Sentul City) above, it can be 
used as a reference that there are many weaknesses contained in the aquo article. Weaknesses both 
in terms of material law and the formal side. Materially, from the point of view of imposing the 
application of articles that are not in place, which is an offense for assistance, it is considered to be 
more than the core offense of corruption. On the formal side, subjectivity is more prominent than 
objectivity because there is no clear and firm measure to measure the extent to which legal officials 
can conclude that their efforts have been prevented, hindered and thwarted in the legal process. 

In the Case of Entrepreneur Kwee Cahyadi Kumala (Suiteng), it was judged that he had 
committed an act of "obstruction of justice" by influencing witnesses not to say the actual events or 
facts and eliminating evidence in the form of documents related to the alleged case. With the 
influence of witnesses and the transfer/disappearance of documents to another place, the KPK 
Investigative Team felt its work was hindered. Furthermore, Advocate Lucas was judged to have 



 

624 

committed an act of "obstruction of justice" because he advised Suspect Eddy Sindoro to stay abroad. 
After all, if the person concerned returned to Indonesia, it would be troublesome for his superiors. 
Advocate Lucas's suggestion made the KPK Investigative Team feel their work was hindered. 

Meanwhile, in one of the EKTP cases, which also applies the obstruction of justice article to 
advocates and a doctor, the suspect is Setya Novanto (Chairman of the Indonesian House of 
Representatives). In the panel of judges' consideration, Doctor Bimanesh Sutardjo and Advocate 
Frederich Yunadi conspired to release Suspect Setya Novanto from arrest by issuing a fake medical 
record. It caused the KPK Investigating Team to feel that their work was hindered and hampered 
the investigation process. However, in the three cases, the Investigative Team and the Public 
Prosecutor completed their work at the investigation and prosecution levels. Likewise, at the trial 
level, the Panel of Judges still succeeded in completing the trial and giving a guilty verdict until the 
case had permanent legal force. The formulation of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law needs to 
be reconstructed towards a material offense by considering the consequences compared to a formal 
offense, which only requires the fulfillment of the elements of the article, which are subjective and 
immeasurable. 

Juridical Analysis Articles 20, 21, 22 Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Eradication of Criminal 
Acts of Terrorism. Article 22 of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning the Implementation of 
Government Regulations instead of Law Number 1 of 2002 concerning the Eradication of Criminal 
Acts of Terrorism stated, "Everyone who intentionally prevents, hinders or thwarts directly or indirectly 
the investigation, prosecution, and examination in a court trial in a case of a criminal act of terrorism, shall 
be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of 2 (two) years and a maximum of 7 (seven) years. year." 
The formulation of articles 21-22 of the Terrorism Criminal Act is almost the same as the formulation 
of the obstruction of justice norm in article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law, both in terms of the 
qualifications of the perpetrators (which do not give any restrictions on who their status and position 
are), as well as the presence of an element of intent. What makes a slight difference is in what object 
the perpetrator acts as an obstruction of justice, whether to witnesses, suspects or evidence of 
terrorism crimes. Meanwhile, the criminal threat for obstruction of justice offense in the Terrorism 
Law is minimum imprisonment of 2 (two) years and a maximum of 7 (seven) years, a lighter threat 
than the criminal threat in the obstruction of justice offense in the Anti-Corruption Law. Namely 
imprisonment for a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 12 years. 

Juridical Analysis Articles 19-24 of Law Number 21 of 2007 concerning the Eradication of 
the Crime of Trafficking in Persons. Article 22 of Law Number 21 of 2007 concerning Eradication 
of the Crime of Trafficking in Persons (TPPO) stated, "Everyone who intentionally prevents, hinders, or 
thwarts directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution and examination in a court of a suspect, defendant, 
or witness in a case of trafficking in persons, shall be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of 1 (one) 
year and a maximum of 5 (five) years and a minimum fine of Rp. 40,000,000.00 (forty million rupiahs) and a 
maximum of Rp. 200,000,000.00 (two hundred million rupiahs). The formulation of the article is almost 
the same if it cannot be called the same as the formulation of the obstruction of justice norm in article 
21 of the Anti-Corruption Law, both in terms of the qualifications of the perpetrator (which does not 
give any restrictions on who is in status and position), as well as the element of intent. Likewise, 
with what object the perpetrator carried out, the form of obstruction of justice turned out to be the 
same, namely to witnesses, suspects or evidence of the crime of TIP. 

Meanwhile, the criminal threat of obstruction of justice offense in the TIP Law is a minimum 
imprisonment of 1 (one) year, a maximum of 5 (five) years, and a minimum fine of Rp. 40,000,000.00 
(forty million rupiahs) and a maximum fine of Rp. 200,000,000.00 (two hundred million rupiahs)." 
The criminal threat that is lighter than the criminal threat in the obstruction of justice offense in the 
Corruption Act is a minimum of 3 years in prison and a maximum of 12 years. 



 

625 

Juridical Analysis Articles 284-286 Formulation of Obstruction of Justice Norms Based on 
Proposal (Pre) Criminal Code. Article 284 stated: “Criminalized with a maximum imprisonment of 5 
(five) years or a maximum fine of category V, Anyone who: prevent, hinder, or thwart directly or indirectly 
the judicial process; submitting evidence or false evidence, false statements, or directing witnesses to give false 
statements in court; or damage, alter, destroy, or eliminate evidence or evidence." Article 285 stated: "If the 
crime as referred to in Article 284 is committed in a criminal justice process, the punishment is a maximum 
imprisonment of 7 (seven) years or a maximum fine of category V. The crime, as referred to in paragraph (Law 
of the Republic of Indonesia, 1999) also includes: presenting themselves as if they were perpetrators of a 
criminal act, therefore undergoing a criminal justice process; destroying, eliminating, or hiding objects that 
are the means or results of a criminal act or other traces of a crime or withdrawing it from an examination 
conducted by an authorized official, after the crime has occurred, with the intent to cover up or hinder or 
complicate the investigation or prosecution; or hinder, intimidate, or influence officials who carry out the 
duties of investigation, prosecution, examination in court proceedings, or court decisions to force or persuade 
him to do or not to perform his duties." 

The formulation of the three articles in the RKUHP is alternative in 3 (three) categories, 
namely (1) the category of obstruction of the judicial process, (2) the category of the process of 
proving and legality of evidence, and (3) the destruction of goods and or evidence. The formulation 
is relatively more detailed than the formulation of offenses in the Corruption, Terrorism, TIP and 
Business Competition laws. What makes the difference is that the element of "intentional" is not 
included. In terms of the qualifications of the actors (which do not give any restrictions on their 
status and position), they are also the same, namely everyone, anyone. Meanwhile, according to the 
author, the judicial process represents the process of investigation, prosecution and trial. 

Meanwhile, the process of proving and destroying evidence is fascinating because it is 
already evident that the acts committed by the perpetrator of the obstruction of justice offense, 
according to the 2019 RKUHPIdana, have manifested. Furthermore, related to the criminal threat of 
obstruction of justice in the 2019 Draft Criminal Code, it is a maximum imprisonment of 5 (five) 
years or a maximum fine of Category V. This criminal threat is still lighter than the criminal threat 
in the obstruction of justice offense in the Corruption Act. Namely imprisonment for a minimum of 
3 years and a maximum of 12 years. 

Harmonization and Reconstruction of "Obstruction of Justice" Norms. Observing the 
comparison between the norms regulated in the Criminal Code, the Corruption Act, TIP, The 
Theorist Law and UNCAC 2003, and the terminology and qualifications adopted by several 
countries mentioned above, several points of view can be drawn as an effort to harmonize the 
"obstruction of justice" norms. The obstruction of justice norm regulated in Article 21 of the Anti-
Corruption Law, which only mentions the word "prevent, hinder or thwart investigations, 
prosecutions and trials" without mentioning what actions and how they take their forms, is very 
abstract and has multiple interpretations because of its subjective nature. Subjectively according to 
the tastes and wishes of investigators, public prosecutors and judges who "feel" prevented, hindered 
and thwarted. It was confirmed when the author spoke with one of the KPK Senior Investigators, 
who confirmed that the investigator's subjectivity was extreme and dominant when interpreting the 
sentence "prevent, hinder and thwart" ongoing investigation efforts. Therefore, an objective attitude 
is needed by referring to how maximal efforts have been made to obtain evidence, in addition to the 
ability to face various obstacles that arise, because the obstacles that arise in corruption cases are not 
always more difficult than in other cases, for example, terrorism and psychotropic cases.  

Referring to the norms regulated in the 4 (four) sample countries above, especially the United 
States, South Korea and Poland, and the Netherlands, which detail what actions qualify as 
"obstruction of justice" offenses, it looks more objective. In these countries, the offense of "obstruction 



 

626 

of justice" is more inclined to the consequences than the cause, reducing subjective sentiment. 
Corrective steps are needed to perfect and harmonize the formulation of the norms of Article 21 of 
the Anti-Corruption Law so that it is in line with the 2003 UNCAC, which still provides additional 
conditions if the norm is implemented, as well as adopting a more detailed formulation of the 
"obstruction of justice" offense. And objective in some sample countries. 

For the author, the formulation of article 284 in the 2019 Draft Criminal Code is quite good. 
However, it still needs to accommodate and combine the elements contained in the current Criminal 
Code, other special laws, and the 2003 UNCAC to be more adequate, objective, and not multi-
interpreted. So it can be applied as the parent of obstruction of justice offense. In terms of the 
formulation and the magnitude of the criminal threat contained in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption 
Law, this formulation does not make sense. In one of his writings, Andi Hamzah once said that the 
demands for the perpetrators of the obstruction of justice offense were beyond reason. How is it 
possible for the offense of "obstructing the investigation of a corruption crime, which is not a material 
corruption offense, the punishment far exceeds that of materially corrupt perpetrators, who are the 
main culprits in the occurrence of corruption cases? Andi Hamzah compares the formulation of the 
criminal threat of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law for a maximum of 12 years with Article 216 
of the Criminal Code, which carries a penalty of only four months or a fine of a maximum of six 
hundred rupiahs. However, the offense being prevented is a murder offense which carries a penalty 
of 15 years in prison.  

Likewise, Eddy OS Hiarej, in one of his writings, stated that often the demands for 
obstruction of justice offenses based on article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law are only motivated by 
enthusiasm. The demands are not accompanied by evidence as well as solid evidence, but only with 
minimal evidence. Although there is no prohibition against prosecuting with strong evidence and 
evidence, the ratio of the prosecution's legislature must be based on the facts of the trial, not on mere 
assumptions. The charge can touch the maximum number of penalties threatened if the evidence is 
probation plena, which means that the evidence is complete, perfect and irrefutable. Even Eddy OS 
Hiarej emphasized the existence of a criminal law doctrine that stipulates strict conditions that are 
suspecting someone criminally must be accompanied or based on evidence that is brighter than light 
(incriminalibus probationes, beden esse luce clariores). 

Furthermore, Laica Marzuki thinks that the material truth (materiele waarheid) has not yet 
emerged in the trials of corruption cases in Indonesia, especially consistently to place the existence 
of criminal acts and intentions to commit crimes (actus reus and men's rea). The element of evil 
consists of these two things that must exist without exception. Actus reus is related to the prohibited 
act, an evil act visible on the surface, commonly called a physical element. Men's rea is related to the 
guilty mind, the evil mind, namely the existence of evil intentions from the perpetrator, commonly 
referred to as the mental mind. The two elements must be integrated as a whole. To the obstruction 
of justice offense, Laica Mazuki thinks that if the material truth (materiale waarheid) is not visible, 
then the act is not sufficient to qualify as a criminal act. 

Based on the legal logic and facts above, the author proposes that the formulation of the 
obstruction of justice offense in corruption crimes be reconstructed so that it reads: Any person who 
intentionally hinders the judicial process by direct or indirect physical and psychological threats by submitting 
false information, evidence or false evidence, influencing witnesses with threats to give false statements in 
court, or damaging, altering, destroying, or the loss of evidence or evidence, is punishable by a maximum 
imprisonment of 7 (seven) years and a maximum fine of Rp. 500 million. The elements of the article in the 
formulation of the article are; 
- Subjective elements : (1) Everyone, (2) Purposely; 



 

627 

- Objective elements : (1) Obstructing the judicial process directly or indirectly; (2) Submitting false 
statements, evidence or false evidence, or influencing witnesses with threats to give false 
statements in court, or destroying, altering, destroying, or eliminating evidence or evidence, (3) 
threatened with a maximum imprisonment of 7 (seven) years and a maximum fine of Rp. 500 
million. 

 
CONCLUSION 

Corruption is a special criminal act, qualified as an ordinary crime but must be eradicated in 
extraordinary ways. In Indonesia, it is not only an extraordinary method but also an institution with 
extraordinary authority formed because corruption has become a systemic and systematic disease 
of society. Criminalizing the act of "obstructing the judicial process" is one way to eradicate 
corruption extraordinarily. The positive law has already regulated it, but it needs to be emphasized 
by ratifying UNCAC 2003 so that the norms governing the offense can be universally recognized.
 The formulation of the norms of article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law had already been 
issued. However, it was considered not in line with the 2003 UNCAC, which still provided 
additional conditions if the norm was implemented. 

Moreover, the formulation of this offense norm is not included in the core corruption offenses 
but in other types of corruption-related crimes. It gives rise to multiple interpretations, is detrimental 
to justice seekers, and even takes undue victims. Therefore, it is necessary to reconstruct the norm 
and with a solid interpretation that the "obstruction of justice" offense is more appropriately 
qualified as a cumulative-material offense which is more objective than insisting that this offense be 
a formal offense-alternative which seems subjective. 

From a practical point of view, this article is also problematic. As an offense regulated 
separately from the core offense of acts or criminal acts of corruption and is only mentioned as "acts 
related to acts of corruption", it should not be threatened with a higher crime than the core offense. 
By looking at the philosophical, juridical and sociological problems of the "obstruction of justice" 
offense norm, this research will lead to the importance of reconstructing Article 21 of Law Number 
31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption. 

Article reconstruction is needed to be in line with the government's legal politics, in harmony 
with other legal rules, especially Law Number 7 of 2006 concerning UNCAC's ratification of 2003, 
so that the legal purpose of protecting legal certainty and public justice is achieved and universally 
recognized. The "obstruction of justice" norm must be regulated separately, either as procedural or 
material law in the Criminal Procedure Code or Criminal Code, to cover all other organic and 
inorganic laws and regulations. 
 
REFERENCES 
Isra, S., Agustina, S., Daulay, Z., (2015). Obstruction Of Justice: Tindak Pidana Menghalangi Proses 

Hukum Dalam Upaya Pemberantasan Korupsi. Jakarta: Themis Books 
Algra, N.E. & K. Van Duyvendijk, Rechtsaanvang. (1983). Start of Law. Translated by J.C.T 

Simorangkir & H. Boerhanuddin Soetan Batoeh. Cet. I, Bina Cipta.  
Chazawi, A. (2013). Potential Problems in the Formulation of Corruption in the Criminal Code Bill. 

Limited Discussion on the Criminal Code Bill, held by the KPK in Surabaya. 
Chazawi, A. (2018). Hukum pidana korupsi di Indonesia (Revised Edition). Depok: Rajawali Press. 
Kumala, K.C. Decision Number. 08/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.JKT.PST. On behalf of the convicted 

entrepreneur Kwee Cahyadi Kumala. 
Sutarjo. B. Decision Number: 17/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PN.JKT.PST. On behalf of the convict Doctor 

Bimanesh Sutardjo. 



 

628 

Lucas. Decision Number: 90/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PN.JKT.PST, on behalf of the convicted Advocate 
Lucas. 

E. Utrecht. (2003). Series of Sari Lectures on Criminal Law 1. Bandung: Reflika Aditama. 
Friedman, L.M. (2001). American Law: An Introduction, Second Edition, Translator: Wishnu Basuki. 

PT. Tatanusa. 
Hamzah, A. (1995). Delik-delik tersebar di luar KUHP dengan komentar. Jakarta:  Pradnya Paramita. 
Hamzah, A. (1986). Korupsi di Indonesia: Masalah dan Pemecahannya. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka 

Utama. 
Hamzah, A. (2007). Pemberantasan Korupsi : Melalui Hukum Pidana Nasional Dan Internasional. 

Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada. 
Harding, C. (2007). Criminal Enterprise: Individuals, Organizations and Criminal Responsibility. UK: 

Willian Publishing. 
House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia. Draft Academic Paper on the Draft Law on 

the Criminal Code (RUU-KUHP). 
KBBI. (2016). Agency for Language Development and Development. Ministry of Education and 

Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. 
Kelsen, H. (2003). General Theory of Law and State, 6th printing. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange 

Ltd. 
Lamintang P.A.F. (1984). Dasar-dasar Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Bandung: Sinar Baru. 
Law of the Republic of Indonesia. (1999). Considerations for letters a and b of the Law of the 

Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of 
Corruption. (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999 number 140 and Supplement 
to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3874). 

Loqman, L. (1991). Beberapa ikhwal di Dalam Undang-undang No. 3 Tahun 1971 tentang Pemberantasan 
Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jakarta: Datacom. 

Moeljatno. (2015). Asas-asas Hukum Pidana, Revised Edition. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. 
Muladi & Priyanto, D. (1991). Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi Dalam Hukum Pidana. Bandung: 

Penerbitan Sekolah Hukum. 
Muladi & Priyatno, D. (2010). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Kencana 

Prenadamedia Group. 
Projodikoro, W. (2003). Tindak-tindak Pidana Tertentu di Indonesia. Bandung: Reflika Aditama. 
Saleh, K. W. (1983). Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dan Suap, Cet V. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia. 
Sianturi, S.R. (1996). Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia Dan Penerapannya, Jakarta: Ahaem-

Petehaem. 
Sudarto (1990). Hukum Pidana 1. Semarang: Yayasan Soedarto. 
Konvensi PBB Melawan Korupsi. (2003). Penjelasan Umum Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia 

Nomor 7 Tahun 2006 tentang Pengesahan Konvensi PBB Menentang Korupsi.  
Konvensi PBB Melawan Korupsi. (2003). Mukadimah Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia 

Nomor 7 Tahun 2006 tentang Pengesahan Konvensi PBB Anti Korupsi.