BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE DAN RELEVANSINYA: MENGURAI BENANG KUSUT KRIMINALISASI KERUGIAN BADAN USAHA MILIK NEGARA

Abstract

Penerapan doktrin Business Judgment Rule (BJR) di Indonesia menyimpan paradoks. Pasal 9F dan Pasal 3Y Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2025 tentang Perubahan Keempat atas Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2003 tentang Badan Usaha Milik Negara secara normatif mengkodifikasi BJR sebagai tameng terhadap kriminalisasi keputusan bisnis, namun dalam praktik penegakan hukum direksi BUMN tetap rentan ditarik ke ranah pidana. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis problematika penerapan BJR dalam penegakan hukum atas kerugian BUMN, dengan menelaah ketidakjelasan batas antara business decision dan perbuatan melawan hukum, potensi kriminalisasi direksi akibat perluasan makna kerugian negara, serta benturan rezim hukum administrasi, perdata, pidana, dan hukum perseroan. Penelitian menggunakan metode hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kasus, didukung analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, Nomor 38/PUU-XXIII/2025, dan Nomor 66/PUU-XXIV/2026. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa BJR di Indonesia berstatus qualified immunity yang dilemahkan oleh reverse burden of proof, ambiguitas paradigma transformasi-sumber dalam UU BUMN, dan pendekatan result-oriented oleh aparat penegak hukum. Penelitian merekomendasikan konstruksi pertanggungjawaban berlapis (layered liability construction) yang membedakan tipologi kerugian dan menempatkan pertanggungjawaban pidana sebagai ultimum remedium, agar BJR dapat berfungsi sebagai pelindung yang efektif tanpa berubah menjadi imunitas mutlak.

The application of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) doctrine in Indonesia carries a paradox. Articles 9F and 3Y of Law Number 16 of 2025 concerning the Fourth Amendment to Law Number 19 of 2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises normatively codify BJR as a shield against the criminalisation of business decisions, yet in practice, directors of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) remain vulnerable to criminal prosecution. This study analyses the problems of BJR application in law enforcement over SOE losses by examining the unclear boundary between business decisions and unlawful acts, the potential criminalisation of directors due to the expansion of state losses, and the conflict between administrative, civil, criminal, and corporate law regimes. The research employs a normative legal method using statute, conceptual, and case approaches, supported by analyses of Constitutional Court Decisions Number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, Number 38/PUU-XXIII/2025, and Number 66/PUU-XXIV/2026. The findings reveal that the Indonesian BJR functions as a qualified immunity weakened by reverse burden of proof, ambiguity between the transformation-source paradigms in the SOE Law, and a result-oriented approach by law enforcement officials. The study recommends a layered liability construction that distinguishes loss typologies and positions criminal liability as ultimum remedium, so BJR can serve as effective protection without becoming absolute immunity.