The implementation reversed evidence is part of policy or political law/legislation to eradicate corruption in Indonesia. Corruption crimes are increasingly eroding social life and the nation so that the method becomes more difficult to unfold and adversely affects the wider community.
Corruption is recognized as a form of white collar crime, which is a crime that involves the people who have an opportunity and a certain capacity, even involving many groups. "Therefore, the crime is compared with acts of terrorism because of the adverse impact on the national economy, especially for efforts to improve the living standards of the poor," says Prof. Dr. T. Gayus Lumbuun, S.H, M.H. in the National Seminar Corruption-Free Economy: Stop Corruption Subsidies, Evaluation of Corruption Regulation Legislation on the perspectives of Economics, Student Executive Body Faculty of Economics and Business held on Saturday (8/10).
According to Gayus, legal policies related to the Reversed Evidence is lex specialist in the evidence system because the Criminal Procedure Code gives the authority and duty to the public prosecutor to prove the accused guilty or not, i.e. to prove the defendant had committed the alleged criminal act according to the evidence submitted to the trial.
Citing Article 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads "the suspect or defendant is not burdened with the obligation of proof", this statement refers to the principle of “presumption of innocence”. However, because of evidence of corruption cases is difficult to be found, legal breakthrough is necessary through the reversed evidence. The laws policy which adopted the reversed evidence in cases of corruption had been started by the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) no. 24 of 1960 on Investigation, Prosecution and Investigation of Corruption. "Through these regulations, corruption is regarded as a gross crime that requires extraordinary handling as well," he said at the Auditorium of UGM Magister Management.
The regulation of the reversed evidence continues to be improved up to the point of the Law no. 31 of 1999 as amended by Law no. 20 of 2001. Various formulations of the reversed evidence are also contained in Article 12 B, 37, 37 A and 38 B. "However, many legal experts assess that the formulation in the Law no. 21, 2001 still has 'multiple interpretations', 'barren', 'narrow/limited', so the article has not yet to be implemented, thus not giving a positive impact on efforts to combat corruption," said the candidate of the elected Chief of Justice.
Several important issues related to of reversed evidence in Law no. 21, 2001 is that the reversed evidence is still limited to the crime of gratuities or bribes, as stated in Article 12 B. Meanwhile, Article 12 B has 'multiple interpretations' as well as having a conceptual vagueness. This law does set the corruption as an extraordinary criminal act (extraordinary crime), so it requires an extraordinary action as well (extra ordinary measures). But unfortunately, the reversed evidence applied to the crime of bribery is not an extraordinary crime. "Even it is considered an ordinary crime, so extraordinary legal action is not necessary," he said.