KEDUDUKAN WHISTLE BLOWER DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI MENURUT HUKUM POSITIF DI INDONESIA

The urgency of this study was carried out through a statutory approach (statue
approach). The material collection technique was done through library research. The legal
materials used were primary materials that are an authoritative material which means that it
has an absolute and binding authority, such as laws and regulations, official records, books
and opinions of experts in the field of law, and various statutory regulations and journals,
websites, citations of legal thesis and online media; secondary materials such as doctrines,
journals, scientific works in the field of law and others, as well as tertiary legal materials
(non-legal), namely relevant legal materials such as legal dictionaries, encyclopedias and
other relevant legal dictionaries.
Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that (1.a) the existence of
Whistleblowers in Law No. 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims, by
definition was not explicitly mentioned, but the whistleblower is closer to the definition of
"reporter" as in Article 10 paragraph (1). However, the Reporter is not the same as the
whistleblower (1.b) Law Number 30 of 2002 Concerning Corruption Eradication
Commission, there is no mention explicitly about the existence of Whistleblower as a
Reporter, only Article 15 of Law Number 30 of 2002 that the Corruption Eradication
Commission states that Corruption Eradication Commission is obliged to provide information
regarding the occurrence of corruption criminal acts; (2) that if the matter revealed by
Whistleblower is not proven empirically, then based on the provisions of Article 318 and 310
of the Criminal Code, Whistleblower can be sued for defamation, considering that Article 10
Paragraph (2) of Law Number 13 of 2006 and Law Number 30 of 2002, there is no explicit
stipulation on Whistleblowers, except as stipulated in Article 191 Paragraph (1) and
Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that if the court believes that from the results
of the examination tried by the court, the defendant's mistake for the actions charged to him is
not proven substantively legitimate and convincing, the defendant is acquitted, or if the court
believes that the convicted act is proven, but the act is not a criminal offense, then then the
defendant was acquitted of all lawsuits.
Keywords: Position, Whistleblower, Corruption Criminal Act