Abstract

The history of the eradication of corruption in Indonesia is a long history, with a series of legislation equipped with
various Special Commission to support the eradication of corruption. But until now corruption is still rampant and massive. In
reality, in relation to the handling of criminal cases of corruption, it can be seen from the fact that many courts have different
judgments on similar cases, where the penalty given is different so as to cause injustice for the defendant in particular and for
society in general.
There are two main issues that will be discussed, namely (1) how the practice of applying formulation policy Article 2 and Article
3 of Law no. 31 of 1999 as amended by Act no. 20 Year 2001, Concerning the Eradication of Corruption in Indonesia; (2) how the
reconstruction of formulation policy Article 2 and Article 3 of Law no. 31 of 1999 as amended by Act no. 20 Year 2001,
Concerning the Eradication of Corruption in Indonesia;
This research uses constructivism paradigm research method, and sociological juridical approach, which is descriptive analysis,
based on primary data source with field study to Corruption Court at District Court of Semarang, and to High Court of Central
Java and secondary data to analyze in the form of decision The court was analyzed descriptively qualitatively.
The results of his research is the application of Article 2 is applied for private actors while Article 3 is applied for the civil
servants and in the imposition of criminal punishment there is no punishment guidance that can assist the judge in imposing the
criminal, so there is juridical weakness in the application of Article 2 and Article 3 Act No . 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law
no. 20 Year 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption.