Legal Analysis of Extortion Crimes in Public Services: A Case Study of the Issuance of K3 Certification at the Ministry of Manpower
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study conducts a juridical analysis of extortion crimes within public service, focusing on the issuance of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) certification at Indonesia’s Ministry of Manpower. Employing a normative legal approach and a case study methodology, the research examines the legal frameworks in the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) and the Corruption Eradication Law (UU Tipikor), highlighting the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali. Through document review and comparative analysis, the study reconstructs the modus operandi and actor network involved in a Transnational Organized Transaction (OTT) by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), revealing systemic bureaucratic coercion and illicit fees up to IDR 6 million per applicant. Findings demonstrate that these actions fulfill the elements of Article 12(e) UU Tipikor rather than general extortion provisions, warranting harsher penalties. Recommendations include digitalizing K3 certification processes, strengthening internal and external oversight, and enforcing zero tolerance through maximal sanctions and bureaucratic reform.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
[1] H. Y. Prabowo and K. Cooper, “Re-understanding corruption in the Indonesian public sector through three behavioral lenses,” J. Financ. Crime, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1028–1062, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1108/JFC-08-2015-0039.
[2] F. Binsar, M. Bayu, I. Abbas, A. Budiman, and Abidah, “Analysis of Digital Content of Indonesian Society in the Public Service Sector,” in Intelligent Sustainable Systems, 2025, pp. 87–97. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-9324-2_8.
[3] Z. Zakariya, T. Santoso, S. Arifin, T. Ifada, and M. Yusita Sari, “Why the Implementation of the Clean-Up (Saberpungli) Policy for Illegal Levies has not yet Reached the Target in East Java,” in Iapa Proceedings Conference, Nov. 2019, pp. 472–480. doi: 10.30589/proceedings.2019.248.
[4] F. H. Y. Putra, M. A. Razak, and Karim, “Analisa Terhadap Tindak Pidana Pemerasan Dan Ancaman Dalam Putusan Nomor 749/K/Pid/2013,” J. Huk. Dan Keadilan, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal.fh.ubhara.ac.id/index.php/judiciary/article/view/96
[5] F. Hafiz and R. Hamidah, “Corruption and the Culture of Illegal Levies: An Analysis of the Phenomenon in Indonesia’s Public Service Sector,” J. Glob. Corrupt., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://jurnal.cerdaspedia.com/index.php/JGC/article/view/38
[6] RMOLNETWORK, “OTT KPK di Kemnaker: Wamenaker Immanuel Ebenezer dan 10 Pejabat Lain Ditangkap,” RMOLJATIM. [Online]. Available: https://www.rmoljatim.id/ott-kpk-di-kemnaker-wamenaker-immanuel-ebenezer-dan-10-pejabat-lain-ditangkap
[7] Detik News, “Langit dan Bumi Harta ‘Sultan’ Kemnaker Vs Duit Hasil Pemerasan,” Detik News. [Online]. Available: https://news.detik.com/berita/d-8077385/langit-dan-bumi-harta-sultan-kemnaker-vs-duit-hasil-pemerasan
[8] Y. Mapanawang, “Delik Pemerasan Sebagai Suatu Delik Terhadap Harta Kekayaan Menurut Pasal 368 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana,” Lex Crim., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1–11, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/lexcrimen/article/view/42666
[9] S. C. Talinusa, “Tindak Pidana Pemerasan Dan/Atau Pengancaman Melalui Sarana Internet Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008,” Lex Crim., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 162–168, 2015, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/lexcrimen/article/view/9804
[10] I. Hasibuan and Sunariyo, “Analisis Yuridis Perbuatan Penyuapan Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” The Juris, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 445–452, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.56301/juris.v7i2.1051.
[11] A. R. Andiyani and Ismunarno, “Perbandingan Hukum Jenis Perbuatan Yang Dilarang Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Antara Indonesia Dan Singapura Differences The Types Of Acts Prohibited In The Criminal Act Of Corruption Between Indonesia And Singapore,” Recidiv. J. Huk. Pidana dan Penanggulangan Kejahatan, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 29–36, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.20961/recidive.v10i1.58846.
[12] L. I. Yandri, T. D. Putri, K. Khairiyah, and Y. Amri, “Upaya Pencegahan Korupsi Pada Sektor Pelayanan Publik,” Menara Ilmu J. Penelit. dan Kaji. Ilm., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 39–44, 2023, doi: 10.31869/mi.v17i1.3993.
[13] H. Satria, “Kebijakan Kriminal Pencegahan Korupsi Pelayanan Publik,” Integritas J. Antikorupsi, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 169–186, 2020, doi: 10.32697/integritas.v6i2.660.