Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (IJoMS)

Rekonstruksi Kebijakan Hukum Pidana dalam Pemberantasan Mafia Tanah atas Tanah Verponding dan Girik melalui Sistem Pertanahan Elektronik di Indonesia

2026-07-13T10:40:30+07:00

Land mafia practices involving verponding and girik land remain a major challenge to legal certainty in Indonesia due to document forgery, overlapping ownership claims, and weaknesses in land administration. Existing criminal law policies primarily rely on general criminal provisions and have not comprehensively addressed the systemic and organized nature of land-related crimes. This study aims to analyze the weaknesses of the current criminal law policy in combating land mafia practices involving verponding and girik land and to formulate a reconstruction model based on the implementation of an electronic land administration system. This research employed a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. Legal materials consisted of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources analyzed qualitatively through legal interpretation, legal synchronization, and prescriptive analysis. The findings indicate that the existing criminal law policy remains fragmented and predominantly repressive, while the electronic land administration system offers significant preventive potential through integrated databases, digital audit trails, electronic certificates, and transparent verification mechanisms. However, the effectiveness of electronic land administration depends on institutional integration, cybersecurity, historical validation of land records, and regulatory harmonization. This study proposes a reconstruction of criminal law policy that integrates criminal law enforcement with electronic land administration by strengthening digital evidence, institutional accountability, inter-agency data integration, and preventive legal mechanisms. Such an approach is expected to enhance legal certainty, improve public trust, and provide more effective protection against organized land mafia practices involving verponding and girik land in Indonesia.

Business Judgment Rule as Legal Protection for Directors in Non-Performing Loan Cases at Indonesian State-Owned Banks

2026-07-13T10:40:28+07:00

The implementation of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) in Indonesian State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) banking remains a significant legal issue due to the overlap between corporate law and anti-corruption law. Business decisions resulting in Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) are frequently interpreted as state financial losses, creating legal uncertainty and exposing directors to criminal liability despite acting in good faith. This study aims to examine the criminal liability of SOE bank directors in credit decision-making and to evaluate the effectiveness of the Business Judgment Rule in distinguishing legitimate business risks from criminal conduct. This research employs a normative legal (doctrinal) approach using statutory, comparative, and case study approaches. Primary legal materials include the Anti-Corruption Law, the Limited Liability Company Law, Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises, Financial Services Authority regulations, and relevant Constitutional Court and Supreme Court decisions. The findings indicate that the Business Judgment Rule has a strong legal foundation under Article 97 of the Limited Liability Company Law, Law No. 1 of 2025 on SOEs, and Constitutional Court Decision No. 62/PUU-IX/2013, which recognizes the separation of SOE assets from state assets. However, its implementation remains constrained by inconsistent judicial interpretation and the expansive application of anti-corruption provisions. Comparative analysis with the United States demonstrates that explicit recognition of BJR as a safe harbor provides greater legal certainty for corporate directors. Therefore, harmonization between corporate and criminal law, together with the explicit codification of the Business Judgment Rule within Indonesia’s anti-corruption legal framework, is essential to strengthen legal certainty, protect directors acting in good faith, and promote sound corporate governance in State-Owned Enterprises.