Elements of Article 2 of the Corruption Crime Law After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016

This research aims to analyze the implementation of Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006 after Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 and to analyze the relationship between the decision of Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 on Civil Servants. There is nebis in idem between Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 and the previous Constitutional Court Decision, namely Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006. The similarity is in the form of the same basis of testing and the material being tested, namely Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The previous Constitutional Court Decision ruled that the phrase “may harm state finances or the state economy” in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law was not contrary to the 1945 Constitution. But with the latest Constitutional Court Decision, on the contrary, it was declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. The change in the Constitutional Court's stance in the latest Decision raises inconsistencies in interpretation, which can lead to legal uncertainty and there is no criminalization implication of the State Civil Apparatus (ASN) from the phrase “may harm state finances or the state economy” in the Anti-Corruption Law as feared by the Petitioner. Discretionary policies (freis ermessen) have received a legal umbrella in the AP Law, and if based on the principles of good public governance, there will be no criminalization. Because what is wrong is not the discretionary policy, but the evil intent of the policy makers to enrich themselves, others, or corporations that are considered to harm state finances.