AYER. Vol. 27 No.

3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

AYER
Reconstruction of Criminal Provisions for Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)

Non-Tax State Revenue: A Case Study in http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/a

rticle/view/130
the Mining Sector in Indonesia How to Cite:
Henry Dianto Pardamean Sinaga,
Rintis Nanda Pramugar, & Aditya
Henry Dianto Pardamean Sinaga1, Rintis Nanda Pramugar2,
Wirawan. (2020). Reconstruction Of
Aditya Wirawan3 Criminal Provisions For Non-Tax
Law Doctoral Program of the Diponegoro University,
1,2,3
State Revenue: A Case Study In The
Indonesia Mining Sector In Indonesia. A Y E R
Email: sinagahenrydp@gmail.com Journal, 27(3), 141 - 154.
Editorial: Revista de la Asociación de
Historia Contemporánea (AHC),
Abstract
coeditada por la AHC y Marcial Pons-
Ediciones de Historia.
The weak law enforcement of Non-Tax State Revenues ISSN: 1134-2277 | ISSN Electrónico:
(PNBP) in Indonesia's mining sector is due to the weak 2255-5838

criminal provisions in PNBP laws and regulations. This

 Informes de citas de revistas de ISI.
impacts the massive exploitation of resources without
Factor de Impacto: 0.318, Q3
regard to the rights of the community to live properly and  SCImago (Scopus-Elsevier). Factor
has not given a real PNBP to the state and given the de impacto SJR: 0.17, Q2

number of violations found in the mining sector. Based on  MIAR. Factor de Impacto: 10,9

the doctrinal study, it is concluded that the current criminal

==Open Access=
provisions in the PNBP field are inadequate to be applied in
the mining sector, considering that up to now, there has
never been an investigation into the mining sector PNBP criminal acts. Reconstruction of PNBP
criminal provisions, which is more ideal philosophically, juridically, and sociologically is needed,
reflecting legal certainty, justice, and public benefit. The PNBP legal concept based on the
reconstruction of criminal provisions recommends renewal of criminal articles containing legal
certainty (such as criminal expiry and the mechanism and authority of Civil Servant Investigators in
enforcing the law in the field of PNBP), public benefit (such as plea bargaining mechanism and the
legal basis for justification of investigation of criminal acts in the event of in absentia), and justice
(such as the formulation of ultimum remedium and the mechanism and exclusion of strict liability
and vicarious liability in criminal acts in the field of PNBP). The results of the legal reconstruction of

141
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

PNBP criminal provisions are expected to recover the state losses contained in the case studies that
have been described through ultimum remedium, namely prioritizing administrative efforts as
much as possible before implementing PNBP criminal provisions whose arrangements must be
clear, certain, firm, and have an outcome on better compliance in the future.

Keywords: Non-Tax State Revenue; Criminal Law; Reconstruction; Mining Sector; Investigation.

A. INTRODUCTION

The mandate of the Indonesian constitution, as formulated in Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945), has emphasized that the earth and water
and natural resources contained therein, including mining and mineral resources, are controlled by
the state and used for the greatest prosperity of the people. But in reality, the policy of utilizing
mineral and coal resources which only pursues this growth has not been fully for the prosperity of
the people because besides, it has resulted in large-scale exploitation of resources without paying
attention to people's rights to live sustainably, (Trihastuti, 2013), the state also has not received the
maximum revenue, especially from the acquisition of Non-Tax State Revenues (PNBP).

This can be seen from the amount of PNBP from coal mineral mining that Indonesia received
based on the results of audits by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) in 2016 and 2017, each recorded
at IDR 15.76 trillion (around the US $ 1.17 billion, the exchange rate of IDR 13,500) and Rp. 23.76
trillion (around the US $ 1.76 billion) wherein the 2017 audit, BPK provided several important notes,
such as debt collection that was not following the provisions, there was no fine mechanism for late
payment, disorderly issuance, and recording of the first bill. , second and third amounting to Rp.
3.47 trillion, there was an underpayment of royalties / fixed fees and a fine of Rp. 181.32 billion
(around the US $ 13.43 million) and the US $ 669.86 thousand, the potential for underpayment /
Payer (WB) has not paid fixed fees of the US $ 5.65 million, potential loss / WB is not subject to a
fine of US $ 203, 37 thousand, weak participation of the Government Internal Control Apparatus
(APIP) in overseeing the PNBP management process, no connection to data on IUP (Mining
Business License), PKP2B (Coal Mining Exploitation Work Agreement), KK (Contract of Work) with
implemented obligations, Tariff PNBP in KK is smaller than IUP. The Directorate General of Mineral
and Coal has proven that the volume of neutral commodities and coal is weak. Of course, this
problem cannot be allowed to continue in Indonesia considering several facts have revealed that
PNBP which is the right of the state is not true, as the findings of the Indonesian Corruption Watch

142
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

(ICW, 2018) reveal several facts, such as an indication of the value of coal export transactions that
are underreported or Reported improperly during the 2006-2016 period it has reached the US $
27.06 billion so that it has an impact on state losses both from coal company liabilities for income
tax and indicated royalties of IDR 133.6 trillion (around the US $ 9.89 billion), even though Of the
6,001 taxpayers in the mineral and coal mining sector, only 967 taxpayers participated in the tax
amnesty in 2016-2017 with a total ransom value of only around IDR 221.71 billion (around the US $
16.42 million).

However, the findings, as Pramugar et al. (2020) had revealed its varieties, such as legal, regulatory
vacancies and weak controls related to the management of PNBP Minerals and Coal, overlapping
authority and regulations, illegal mining activities, and the abuse of power and trust for personal
interests, and as the case studies will describe some facts that the PNBP has not actually become
state revenue, indicating that the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, as the official mining
management institution in Indonesia, is still weak in enforcing the law in the PNBP sector, even
though Article 1 paragraph (3) The 1945 Constitution has emphasized that Indonesia is a
constitutional state. Law no. 9 of 2018 concerning PNBP (hereinafter referred to as PNBP Law)
regulates criminal provisions. Thus, this study seeks to produce a legal conception based on the
reconstruction of criminal provisions in the PNBP sector in Indonesia's mining and coal sector.

There are not many studies on PNBP in the mining sector and related to the reconstruction of
criminal provisions in the PNBP sector in the mining sector in Indonesia. Even though they cannot
directly influence this study, several existing studies on PNBP can enrich the literature in answering
the problems studied in this paper. The existing studies are still general and about the scope of
PNBP, its proximity to taxes, and it's potential for the future. Ayupov & Kazakovtseva (2014)
described the characteristics that distinguish non-tax financial resources from tax revenues, namely:
“(i) the order of establishment, normative documents define calculation and collection of the non-
tax income according to which the non -tax income can be raised on a voluntary or compulsory
basis, have binding or optional character; (ii) tax elements aren't defined: concrete rates, terms of
payment, privilege, and others; (iii) non-tax receipts have the special-purpose character of use fixed
in normative legal acts in the order of their calculation and payment; (iv) planning of non-tax
receipts often in practice is carried out proceeding from the amount of the actual receipts for the
previous periods.”

143
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

Prichard, Salardi & Segal (2018) revealed that besides “governments with access to captive sources
of non-tax revenue, primarily from natural resources, will be empowered to resist political
opposition through repression or expanded public spending and patronage.” Still, on the other
hand, "governments that rely heavily on tax revenue will need to bargain with mobile taxpayers,
conceding greater accountability and democracy in exchange for tax payments". Komyagin (2015)
argues that even though the budget legislation and academic literature initiated PNBP as "all that
is not included in tax revenue of the budget," PNBP involves different classification systems, where
the list of PNBP is open and ever-changing, is not uniform, and has no single origin. Then, the
proximity of PNBP to taxes was put forward by Gordienko (2019) by stating that PNBP, which is a
large-scale task, is structurally closer to tax, as some of the criteria refer to “revenues that have
signs of tax and collection, (ie, possessing the characteristics of obligation, individual non-
repayment, focus on financing the functions of the state and local self-government) and
mandatory revenues that do not have the signs of tax and duty include: administrative fines,
mandatory insurance payments, etc.”.

Furthermore, Mourre & Reut (2017) pointed out the huge potential of PNBP, who reminded that
learning from many countries in the Europe Union (EU) whose PNBP contributed one-third of the
volatility of government revenue in the EU, so that the volatility of PNBP was significant and
proportionally greater than the volatility of tax revenues, and Das-Gupta (2015) who suggests
paying greater attention to PNBP because the possible decline in the government's ability to utilize
an important tax base after globalization will make PNBP, in time, a more important than taxes.

Gordienko's (2019) idea which states that PNBP is structurally closer to tax will harmonize Sinaga's
study (2017; 2018) which concludes that in terms of taxation crimes that are identical to the
ultimum remedium of tax fraud, legal entities (rechtspersoon) in Indonesia can be accounted for
jointly and or individually with natural humans (natuuralijk persoon) such as shareholders, directors,
commissioners, and or other parties who have functional positions in the organizational structure
of a corporation acting either individually or on behalf of and / or for the name of a legal entity, or
the burden of criminal responsibility can be transferred only to the natuuralijk persoon, unless the
said person can prove and convince that in his position, according to reasonableness and fairness,
it is impossible to hold accountable. Besides, considering that the basis for a criminal act is the
principle of legality and the basis for convictions of the maker is the principle of error (Prasetyo,
2010) and considering the calculation of losses (to the income) of the State, which at least
approaches material truth, is identical to the tax year, it is more useful and more accurate if the

144
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS) of Taxes considers the tempus delicti of loss (on revenue) as a
continuing act, as regulated in Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) which
formulates: "If between several acts, even though each one is a crime or offense, has a relationship
in such a way that it must be viewed as a continuing act, ... etc ... ”.

Apart from the scope, potential, and positive side of PNBP, which basically shows its ability to
reduce fiscal pressure and contribute to economic development, there are three negative
implications that must be watched out for, namely chaotic and non-transparent implementation,
which creates a very substantial additional financial burden for the taxpayers because they have
also been imposed with taxes and cause gaps between regions and / or PNBP management
institutions that have the potential for larger and smaller PNBPs. This is stated by Deng & Smyth
(2000) and suggests overcoming it with a "top-down" solution, which is carried out in two stages.
The first stage is carried out by implementing checks and balances between the central and
regional governments. The second stage is then carried out through the re-examination of the
structure of fees, which must clearly state that all revenue sources outside of the budgetary system
must be considered illegal. The same thing was stated by Yamin, Amir & Angraini (2018) who have
conducted a PNBP study at the Land Office Unit of Parigi Moutong Regency, as their findings show
that there are several weaknesses in the PNBP implementation and administration phase, such as
weakness in the supervision of STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) for management and
regulation, weak internal control and control over system implementation, minimum supervision
and reports are only fulfilled based on administrative formalities, so that the role of auditors in the
planning, implementation and accountability phases needs to be designed in a direct and
systematic manner so that the added value is produced by auditors can provide effective results to
improve the results of each PNBP cycle (Yamin, Amir, & Angraini, 2018).

B. METHOD

In terms of accountability in the field of state revenue, such as PNBP, it is sufficient to adopt the
understanding of reconstruction put forward by Sinaga & Sinaga (2018) as an action or process to
rebuild, re-create, or reorganize existing models so that they become more ideal to be used as a
solution that prioritizes output and outcome in its efforts to overcome violations or crimes that are
detrimental to state finances. The definition of reconstruction shows that the philosophical and
juridical foundations of this study are in line with the flow of thought in the form of prescriptive (to
get suggestions for overcoming problems posed in research) and evaluative (to assess the

145
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

programs being implemented) (Soekanto, 2010) so that the normative juridical method is adequate
in producing an ideal conception of criminal provisions in the field of PNBP by exploring laws
based on statutory regulations as well as reviewing, studying, and examining theories and concepts
related to law enforcement in the field of PNBP mineral and coal commodities, which can realize
the maximum state revenue for the prosperity of the people.

C. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

1. Overview of Criminal Provisions for Non-Tax State Revenue in Indonesia

PNBP, which in Article 1 point 1 PNBP Law is defined as levies paid by individuals or entities by
obtaining direct or indirect benefits for services or utilization of resources and rights obtained by
the state, based on statutory regulations, which are received by the Central Government. Apart
from tax and grant revenues and managed in the state revenue and expenditure budget
mechanism, it is one of the significant sources of state revenue and has the characteristic of
improving the people's social welfare in the country concerned (Atmasasmita, 2004). PNBP, which
was first implemented in 1997 with the promulgation of Law no. 20 of 1997 concerning PNBP,
currently regulated in Law no. 9 of 2018, which is incorporated into Law Number 17 of 2003
concerning State Finance (Public Finance Law), as formulated in Article 2 letter c of the Public
Finance Law. Before enacting Law no. 20 of 1997, the basis for implementing and managing PNBP
that applies covers various levels of regulations so that it does not fully reflect legal certainty, which
results in chaos and complexity in the management of PNBP.

As PNBP is part of public law, criminal sanctions are still needed to support administrative norms
fully. Criminal sanctions themselves are part of criminal law or penal law, whose definition,
according to Gardner (2009), is “the body of law defining offenses against the community at large,
regulating how suspects are investigated, charged, and tried, and establishing punishments for
convicted offenders", as crime is" an act that law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty
treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding” (Gardner, 2009). The existence of criminal
sanctions in PNBP Law also shows efforts to build a foundation of fairness in recovering state or
regional losses through the propriety of beneficiaries to bear monetary sanctions, given the limited
financial and non-financial capabilities of employees or agents of a principal in the mining sector in
recovering the state's losses along with other monetary sanctions (Sinaga, Wirawan, & Pramugar,
2020).

146
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

The criminal provisions on PNBP are formulated in Article 67 and Article 68 of Law no. 9 of 2018,
where Article 67 states that the Payer who calculates the PNBP obligation himself who deliberately
does not pay or submits an incorrect PNBP Receivable report, will be punished with a fine of 4
(four) times the amount of PNBP owed and imprisonment for at least 2 ( two) years and a
maximum of 6 (six) years, while Article 68 regulates the punishment against any person who
deliberately does not provide documents, information and/or other evidence that is owned or
other evidence that is owned but the contents are not true. Criminal provisions in Law no. 9 of 2018
only regulates deliberate acts, which is different from the old PNBP Law, namely Law no. 20 of
1997, which regulates the imposition of criminal acts of negligence, as in Article 20 of Law no. 20 of
1997 which stipulates that the mandatory PNBP payment due to his / her negligence: (a) does not
submit a PNBP payable report; or (b) submitting Payable PNBP reports but the contents are
incorrect or incomplete or attach incorrect information, or do not attach correct information,
causing losses to State revenues, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 1 (one) year and a
fine. A maximum of 2 (two) times the amount of PNBP owed. Besides, in Law no. 9 of 2018, there
are no criminal provisions regarding the repetition of criminal acts, as in Article 21 paragraph (2) of
Law no. 20 of 1997 once stipulated that the criminal penalty was doubled against the payer who
was proven to have deliberately committed another criminal act in the PNBP sector before 1 (one)
year passed, commencing from the completion of part or all of the imprisonment imposed, Of
course, the elimination of this article is fairer considering that the crime is related to an act that
violates the law so that it should be professionally and based on the principle of checks and
balances. As long as the criminal act in the PNBP sector has not expired, the same action must be
viewed as an act. Which must calculate all PNBP amounts that are actually owed, as the application
of Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code in calculating state losses (on income), according
to Abidin & Hamzah (2010), is a reflection that continuing actions refer to the unity of the will in
similar acts which has a time relationship factor (short time interval) and according to Hiariej (2009)
as a mutual relationship between one action and another and is a unity, provided that it is the
embodiment of a forbidden will decision. The act must be of the same type (in the sense of the
charges fall under the same criminal provisions).

2. Reconstruction of Criminal Provisions for Non-Tax State Revenue in Indonesia

The definition and nature of PNBP, which is structurally close to taxes (Gordienko, 2019) and which
are both part of administrative law which implements a self-assessment system, shows that the

147
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

spirit of handling in the event of a criminal act in the PNBP sector is the same as the handling of
tax crime (Sinaga, 2017), namely that the settlement of the case begins with maximum
administrative and non-penal sanctions. If this does not work, then the resulting loss in state
revenue will be subject to criminal sanctions, subject to fines before being subject to imprisonment
as an ultimum remedium (Nahak, 2014; Yuhelson, 2017).

The characteristic of criminality in the PNBP sector as an ultimum remedium should still refer to the
legality principle which generally applies to the European continental legal system, including
Indonesia, considering that criminal law must be able to protect people from three forms of
harmful losses, namely as "protection from the harm caused by others, protection from the harm
caused by ourselves, and protection of societal morals” (Pollock, 2009). The principle of legality
which in principle states that an act cannot be convicted, except under a legally existing law before
the act is committed, so that there are three main principles, namely the principle that states that
there is no criminal act without first being regulated in law-written law (lex scripta), the principle
which emphasizes that there is no crime without clear statutory rules ( lex certa), and the principle
which emphasizes that there is no crime without a strict law (lex stricta) (Hiariej, 2009).

Criminal provisions in the field of PNBP that must comply with lex scripta, lex certa, and lex stricta
are an ultimum remedium of administrative law, which will later make PNBP a more important
source of income than taxes, so it is necessary to determine what standards of behavior should be
set, which in This is sufficient to adopt Pollock's (2009) opinion proposing three factors that must
be considered, namely "the enforceability of the law, the effects of the law, and the existence of
other means to protect society against the undesirable behavior." Regarding the enforceability of
the PNBP law, currently, it has not fulfilled the lex scripta, lex certa, and lex stricta considering that
there are only Article 67 and Article 68 in Law no. 9 of 2018, so that it does not confirm and does
not formulate in the structure of the law how the mechanism and who is authorized to investigate
criminal acts in the PNBP sector. Even in a case study in the mining sector, which at the Ministry of
Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) has PPNS, there has never been an investigation of PNBP
crime in the ESDM sector. Until now, the only reference for conducting criminal investigations on
PNBP crimes is based on Article 21 of Government Regulation No. 22 of 2005 concerning the PNBP
Examination, which regulates that the Examiner (in this case is an official at the Financial and
Development Supervisory Agency) recommends to the Head of Government Agencies requesting
PNBP examination to follow up by the prevailing laws and regulations in the event of finding
suspected criminal acts in the examination of the Payer and Government Agencies. The mandate of

148
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

Article 57 of Law no. 9 of 2018 requires provisions regarding the procedures for PNBP inspection in
the most recent Government Regulations not yet available to date.

The impact of criminal provisions in the PNBP sector is inadequate, considering that several
provisions duly regulated in criminal law have not been regulated. In fact, the morality of action
must be determined by considering the usefulness of achieving human happiness (Erwin & Arpan,
2008); the measure of the merits of action must be measured in terms of the benefits generated
because the highest good is a benefit (Riyanto, 2010), each legal preference. and the provisions of
the laws and regulations must be in the framework of fulfilling the national interest and in realizing
the public welfare (Hermawan & Sinaga, 2020), and benefits according to Taylor (1972) which
should refer to "a necessary condition for the justifiability of social rules because the concept of
utility is built into the very notion of an individual's having good reasons for committing himself to
social rules.” This is in line with Bentham's (2006) suggestion, which proposes four solutions in
minimizing crime, namely preventive solutions (in the form of ways to prevent violations),
suppressive solutions (in the form of ways to stop violations that have been initiated or are
ongoing but are not yet fully the violation has been committed), a satisfactory solution (in the form
of restoration or compensation for those who suffer as a result of the violation), and a criminal
solution or punishment (which aims to prevent the occurrence of the same violation which was
committed in two ways, namely by straightening the intention and get rid of physical strength).
Several criminal provisions have not been regulated and have had a legal impact on the
management of PNBP in Indonesia, such as those relating to the termination of investigations and
the occurrence of investigations or convictions in absentia. It is necessary to have an article
regulating the termination of a criminal investigation in the event of things such as the Payer filing
a plea bargaining in terms of admitting guilt and being willing to pay PNBP, which is actually owed
along with the sanctions as Rahardjo (2010) has confirmed that one of the concepts of legal
settlement is not only formal-logistic thinking is a solution that uses the optics of legal sociology,
namely a settlement outside the court. Plea bargaining in criminal policy is indeed in line with law
enforcement that should be directed to strengthen the achievement of people's welfare, where the
handling of PNBP crime in the mining sector is not only measured in terms of output but also
based on outcomes, which among others can be seen from the impact of benefits that are greater
than costs (Sinaga & Bolifaar, 2020) and the change in behavior from being obedient to being
more obedient as violators who submitted plea bargaining commit not to repeat the offense.

149
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

As a comparison, plea bargaining itself already applies to the provisions of tax crimes in Indonesia,
which in Article 44B of Law no. 6 of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures as
amended several times, most recently by Law Number 16 of 2009 concerning Stipulation of
Government Regulations instead of Law Number 5 of 2008 concerning the Fourth Amendment of
Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures into Law (UU KUP)
stipulates that in the interest of state revenue, at the request of the Minister of Finance, the
Attorney General can stop investigations of criminal acts in the field of taxation that have not been
submitted to the court, which will only be carried out after the taxpayer has paid off the tax debt
and added with administrative sanctions in the form of a fine of 4 (four) times the amount of tax
not paid or underpaid, or which should not have been returned (Priyambudi, Sinaga, & Bolifaar,
2020). Then, as another effort to save the country's wealth, investigations into criminal acts in the
PNBP sector have not been regulated in absentia. Then, considering Article 1 number 15 Law no. 15
of 2006 concerning the Supreme Audit Agency and Article 1 number 22 of Law no. 1 of 2004
concerning the State Treasury has defined “State / Regional Loss” as a lack of money, securities,
and goods, the real and definite amount as a result of an act against the law either deliberately or
negligently, so that if a criminal case in the field of PNBP has fulfilled at least two pieces of
evidence as in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), five pieces of evidence are
formulated, consisting of witness statements, expert statements, letters, instructions, and
statements of the accused / suspect, to speed up the recovery of losses. State, and to facilitate
asset tracing, it is necessary to regulate judiciary and/or investigate criminal acts in the field of
PNBP in absentia (Sinaga, 2017). It is also necessary to stipulate in the criminal provisions of PNBP
regarding the comparability of imprisonment with a fine if the convicted person is a legal entity
that cannot be imprisoned.

As for the case of criminal law in PNBP as a way to protect the community from undesirable
behavior, it is sufficient to implement it in line with its nature as an ultimum remedium. This is in
line with Bentham's (Kania, 2008) idea, which, among other things, emphasizes that punishment
should move people to choose lesser criminal options; if it cannot discourage them from crime
altogether, each offense should have its own, unique punishment, appropriate to the character and
the gain of the offense, and punishment should be no more than that minimally necessary to
achieve deterrence due to the excessive punishment is needless cruelty. One of the best
alternatives in implementing Bentham's idea is to adopt non-error-based liability, such as strict
liability and vicarious liability, in criminal provisions in the PNBP sector and harmonize criminal
provisions in the PNBP sector with the current draft Criminal Code. Strict liability is formulated in

150
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

Article 39 paragraph (1) of the Draft Criminal Code, which regulates that for certain criminal acts,
the law can determine that a person can be convicted solely because the elements of the crime
have been fulfilled without paying attention to the existence of error, whereas Liability is
formulated in Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Draft Criminal Code which regulates that if it is
determined by law, everyone can be held accountable for criminal acts committed by other people.
The regulation of the two criminal liability in the criminal provisions in the field of PNBP further
strengthens the actual criminal responsibility of the Payer, considering that over time, the parties
who benefit in the event of a criminal act in the PNBP sector "sacrifice" another party in ways such
as ordering, participating commit, recommend, or assist criminal acts in the PNBP sector.

D. CONCLUSION

Criminal provisions in the field of PNBP need to be renewed considering that there are only Articles
67 and 68 of Law No. 9 of 2018 and considering that the criminal provisions in the PNBP sector
must reflect an ultimum remedium from the penal administrative law. Referring to the facts in the
form of fraud that has occurred in the mining sector, but until now there has never been any
criminal investigation in the PNBP sector, so the two criminal articles applicable in Law no. 9/2018
must be reconstructed into criminal provisions in the PNBP sector which are more ideal
philosophically, juridically and sociologically, namely criminal provisions which include lex scripta,
lex certa and lex stricta, which are able to strengthen administrative law in the PNBP sector as a
very source of income important and potentially greater than tax revenue in the future considering
that globalization can reduce the ability of the government to utilize the tax base as the largest
source of state revenue.

REFERENCES

1. Abidin, A. Z., & Hamzah, A. (2010). Pengantar dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Yarsif
Watampone.
2. Atmasasmita, S. (2004). Sekitar Masalah Korupsi Aspek Nasional dan Aspek Internasional .
Jakarta: Mandar Maju.
3. Ayupov, A. A., & Kazakovtseva, M. V. (2014). Management of financial stability of the non-tax
income of regional budgets. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 187-192.
4. Bentham, J. (2006). Teori Perundang-Undangan: Prinsip-Prinsip Legislasi, Hukum Perdata dan
Hukum Pidana. Bandung: Penerbit Nusamedia & Penerbit Nuansa.
151
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

5. Das-Gupta, A. (2005). Non-tax revenues in Indian states: Principles and case studies. Viewed
on, 6.
6. Deng, X., & Smyth, R. (2000). Non‐Tax Levies in China: Sources, Problems and Suggestions
for Reform. Development Policy Review, 18(4), 391-411.
7. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. (2017). Brief report discussion on the draft of
Indonesian Criminal Law Code. Jakarta: Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia.
8. Erwin M., & Arpan, A. (2008). Filsafat Hukum: Mencari Hakikat Hukum. Palembang:
Universitas Sriwijaya.
9. Gardner, B. A. (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
10. Gordienko, M. (2020, January). Environmental Non-Tax Revenue as a Source of Business
Financial Risks. In Ecological-Socio-Economic Systems: Models of Competition and
Cooperation (ESES 2019) (pp. 406-410). Atlantis Press.
11. Harris, D. (2020). Literature Review and Research Design: A Guide to Effective Research
Practice. New York: Routledge.
12. Hermawan, A. W., & Sinaga, H. D. P. (2020). Public Benefit Principle in Regulating E-
Commerce Tax on Consumer’s Location in Indonesia. International Journal of Advanced
Science and Technology, 29(8), 1212-1222.
13. Hiariej, E. O. (2009). Asas Legalitas & Penemuan Hukum Dalam Hukum Pidana. Jakarta:
Erlangga.
14. ICW. (2018). Batubara dan Ancaman Korupsi. Retrieved from
https://antikorupsi.org/sites/default/files/diskusi_batubara_dan_korupsi_10_juli_2018_icw.pdf.
15. Kania, R. E. (2008). Managing Criminal Justice Organizations: An Introduction to Theory &
Practice. Newark: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
16. Komyagin, D. (2018). Tax and Non-tax Revenue of the Budget: What’s the
Difference?. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics (JARLE), 9(32), 533-543.
17. Kostruba, A., Khomenko, M., & Kot, O. (2018). Rules of Law and Rights-Terminating Legal
Facts in the Mechanism of Legal Regulation. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and
Economics, 9(8 (38)), 2638-2642.
18. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 16 of 2009 concerning Provisions and Procedures
for General Taxation.
19. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2003 concerning Public Finance.
20. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 9 of 2018 concerning Non-Tax State Revenue.
21. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 15 of 2006 concerning the Supreme Audit Agency.
22. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2004 concerning State Treasury.

152
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

23. Mourre, G., & Reut, A. (2019). Non-tax revenue in the European Union: A source of fiscal
risk?. International Tax and Public Finance, 26(1), 198-223.
24. Nahak, S. (2014). Hukum Pidana Perpajakan, Konsep Penal Policy Tindak Pidana Perpajakan
dalam Perspektif Pembaharuan Hukum. Malang: Setara.
25. Pollock, J. M. (2009). Criminal Law. Newark: Matthew Bender & Company.
26. Pramugar, R. N., Hidayat, A., Syakhroza, A., & Sinaga, B. R. P. (2020). Supervision
Reconstruction of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in Corruption Prevention of
Indonesia's Mining Sectors. Test Engineering and Management, 83, 12017-12030.
27. Prasetyo, T. (2010). Kriminalisasi dalam Hukum Pidana. Bandung: Penerbit Nusa Media.
28. Prichard, W., Salardi, P., & Segal, P. (2018). Taxation, non-tax revenue and democracy: New
evidence using new cross-country data. World Development, 109, 295-312.
29. Priyambudi, Sinaga, H. D. P., & Bolifaar, A. H. (2020). Managing Plea Bargaining Risk in
Indonesia: An Effort to Overcome the Corporate Corruption. Tes Engineering &
Management, v83, 11993–12005.
30. Rahardjo, S. (2010). Penegakan Hukum Progresif: Sebuah Sintesa Hukum Indonesia . Jakarta:
Kompas.
31. Republic of Indonesia Government Regulation Number 22 of 2005 concerning Audit of Non-
Tax State Revenue.
32. Riyanto, A. (2010). Filsafat Hukum. Bandung: Yapemdo.
33. Sinaga, H. D. P. (2017). The Criminal Liability of Corporate Taxpayer in the Perspective of Tax
Law Reform in Indonesia. Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 29(3),
542-557.
34. Sinaga, H. D. P. (2018). Loss (of Revenue) of State within Taxation Crimes in
Indonesia. Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 30(1), 153-167.
35. Sinaga, H. D. P., & Sinaga, B. R. P. (2018). Rekonstruksi Model-Model Pertanggungjawaban di
Bidang Perpajakan dan Kepabeanan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
36. Sinaga, H. D. P., Wirawan, A., & Pramugar, R. N. (2020). Recontruction of Corporate Criminal
Liability in Indonesia. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology , 29(8), 1231-
1240.
37. Sinaga, H. D. P., & Bolifaar, A. H. (2020, March). Blockchain Adoption for Plea Bargaining of
Corporate Crime in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 2020 The 2nd International Conference
on Blockchain Technology (pp. 115-119).
38. Soekanto, S. (2010). Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: UI Press.

153
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 3 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/130

39. Supreme Audit Agency. (2017). Audit Report of the on the Central Government's Financial
Statements 2017. Jakarta: Supreme Audit Agency of the Republic of Indonesia.
40. Taylor, P. W. (1972). Justice and Utility. Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 1(3), 327-350.
41. The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
42. The Criminal Code of Republic of Indonesia.
43. The Criminal Procedure Code of Republic of Indonesia.
44. Trihastuti, N. (2013). Hukum Kontrak Karya Pola Kerjasama Pengusahaan Pertambangan di
Indonesia. Malang: Setara Press.
45. Yamin, N. Y., Amir, A. M., & Angraini, M. (2018, July). The Management of Non-Tax Revenue:
An Evaluative Review. In 2018 3rd International Conference on Education, Sports, Arts and
Management Engineering (ICESAME 2018). Atlantis Press.
46. Yuhelson. (2017). Dualisme Kompetensi Peradilan Terhadap Keputusan Dan/Atau Tindakan
Administrasi Aparatur Sipil Negara Yang Menimbulkan Kerugian Keuangan Negara :
Reaktualisasi Pendidikan Luar Sekolah Sebagai Pemberdayaan Masyarakat . Gorontalo:
Universitas Negeri Gorontalo Press.

154