Law enforcers are often faced with difficulties when faced with events that meet the formulation in criminal provisions but these are not following the nature (dem wesen nach) of the criminal provisions. To deal with these provisions, one of the legal discovery methods which can be used is to use the interpretation of originalism. The research method in this article is legal research with a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. Based on the research in this article, it was found that First, the characteristics of the interpretation of originalism as a method of discovery in criminal law is to interpret a statutory regulation according to the original intent of the legislator, so it does not deviate from the original will of the legislator. Second, the use of interpretation of originalism in criminal cases can be seen in the decision number 121/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Mll, which incidentally the judge used the interpretation of originalism related to the true meaning of competence and in the decision number 72/Pid.Sus/2020 /PN Psb, the judge used the interpretation of originalism to interpret the element "Hostile, abuse or blasphemy against a religion professed in Indonesia".

http://bircu-journal.com/index.php/birci/article/download/2360/pdf

Originalist Interpretation: A Method of Discovery in Criminal Law (Rechtsvinding in Het Strafrecht)

Article 44 paragraphs (4) and (5) of Law no. 5 of 1999 regulates that for business actors who do not carry out the KPPU's decisions that have permanent legal force (BHT), KPPU can hand over these business actors to investigators. The provision is unclear, that is, it is not written / stated explicitly, including the categories of acts that can be subject to / threatened with principal or additional crimes as in Articles 48 and 49 of Law No. 5 of 1999. The lack of clarity is related to the issue of formulasi policy which is one of the strategic policies in realizing more rational laws and becomes a guideline for the next functionalization stages, namely the application and execution stages. Formulation of criminal offenses in Article 48 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law no. 5 of 1999 is interpreted as a wesenschaw offense, which is said to have fulfilled the elements of a criminal offense not only because the act is in accordance with the formulation of a criminal offense but the act is also intended by the legislators, that the business actor and or other party may be convicted if do not carry out what becomes their obligation as in the KPPU Decision which has BHT. Obligations to carry out the business and other parties mentioned, namely carrying out administrative sanctions / actions imposed by KPPU for violating the administration of Law No. 5 of 1999. That also signifies criminal conviction in Article 48 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law no. 5 of 1999 is ultimum remidium. Keywords : F ormulasi P olicy, B usiness A ctors, KPPU D ecision.

/pdf/kebijakan-formulasi-tindak-pidana-terhadap-pelaku-usaha-yang-3jkgouhgma.pdf

Fitrah Akbar

Papers

Kebijakan Formulasi Tindak Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Usaha yang Tidak Melaksanakan Putusan KPPU yang Sudah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap (BHT)