CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ROAD ORGANIZERS IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF LAW NUMBER 22 YEAR 2009 CONCERNING TRAFFIC AND ROAD TRANSPORTATION

Received: 12-08-2020 Accepted: 04-10-2020 Published: October 2020 Volume: 3 Issue: 2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33019/berump un.v3i1.39 The specific goal of this research is to know and analyze the provisions of norms or legal norms relating to the criminal liability of road organizers from the dogmatic aspects of the law and legal principles and how criminal liability of the Road Organizers and Road Transportation according to Law Number 22 Year 2009 concerning Traffic and Road Transportation. This research is normative. The data were obtained by a detailed analysis of legal materials, primary, secondary and tertiary law. The specification of this research is the pure legal research to get a picture of one problem, namely about the criminal responsibility of the road organizer from the perspective of Law Number 22 Year 2009, concerning Traffic and Road Transportation. Through the legislative approach (normative approach), which is the approach to the applicable laws and regulations to obtain a basis for discussing issues related to traffic and road transport crimes, including legislation Law Number 22 Year 2009, concerning Road Traffic and Transport Law Number 38 of 2004, Concerning Roads, Government Regulation Number 43 of 1993 concerning Road Infrastructure and Traffic. The results of the study indicate that there is a blurring of norms in Law Number 22 Year 2009, especially regarding the concept of road organizers as regulated in Article 24 and Article 273. as a result, the article cannot be operational. So that criminal liability for road organizers if they make a mistake on the formulas of article 24 and article 273 is difficult to account for. Although the organizer of the road as a legal subject if making a mistake should be responsible and can be held responsible based on the theory of strict liability and vicarious liability. The conclusion is that Law No. 22/2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transport does not regulate the concept of road organizers so that if a road organizer makes a mistake as regulated in Article 24 and Article 273 it is difficult to be accounted for, thus ensuring that there is a blurring of norms in The law and unworking. KEYWORDS

The specific goal of this research is to know and analyze the provisions of norms or legal norms relating to the criminal liability of road organizers from the dogmatic aspects of the law and legal principles and how criminal liability of the Road Organizers and Road Transportation according to Law Number 22 Year 2009 concerning Traffic and Road Transportation. This research is normative. The data were obtained by a detailed analysis of legal materials, primary, secondary and tertiary law. The specification of this research is the pure legal research to get a picture of one problem, namely about the criminal responsibility of the road organizer from the perspective of Law Number 22 Year 2009, concerning Traffic and Road Transportation. Through the legislative approach (normative approach), which is the approach to the applicable laws and regulations to obtain a basis for discussing issues related to traffic and road transport crimes, including legislation Law Number 22 Year 2009, concerning Road Traffic and Transport Law Number 38 of 2004, Concerning Roads, Government Regulation Number 43 of 1993 concerning Road Infrastructure and Traffic. The results of the study indicate that there is a blurring of norms in Law Number 22 Year 2009, especially regarding the concept of road organizers as regulated in Article 24 and Article 273. as a result, the article cannot be operational. So that criminal liability for road organizers if they make a mistake on the formulas of article 24 and article 273 is difficult to account for. Although the organizer of the road as a legal subject if making a mistake should be responsible and can be held responsible based on the theory of strict liability and vicarious liability. The conclusion is that Law No. 22/2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transport does not regulate the concept of road organizers so that if a road organizer makes a mistake as regulated in Article 24 and Article 273 it is difficult to be accounted for, thus ensuring that there is a blurring of norms in The law and unworking.

INTRODUCTION
The existence of Law Number 22 Year 2009, concerning Traffic and Road Transportation has a very strategic function and purpose in handling traffic problems, especially those related to the land transportation system. Or in other words, Law Number imprisonment penalties, and criminal fines can be imposed one of two applicable criminal sanctions.
The problem is who is meant by the road organizer as regulated in article 273 of Law Number 22 Year 2009? to answer this question, it must be based on the existence of the law, whether in the law has provided a concept or understanding of the road organizer? because the formulation of the concept or understanding in law is very important, which serves to provide an explanation or give meaning to the propositions or words formulated in the article in the law so that the existence of the article becomes clear and unambiguous or multiple interpretations. Usually, the concepts or meanings in the law are set in Chapter I, Year 2009 there is a void of norms, especially related to the formulation of norms regulated in article 273 which provides criminal sanctions to road organizers. "The road organizer is obliged to immediately repair the damaged road that can result in a traffic accident, to prevent it, the road organizer must give a sign." 2 If it is analogous that what is intended by the road organizer is the government, "based on this law the guidance in the field of Road Traffic and Transport is carried out jointly by all relevant agencies (stakeholders) in government affairs in the field of road infrastructure" 3 , or by the ministry responsible for the road sector; CQ. The ministry in charge of road construction (The Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing or PUPR) at the Central Level or the Public Works Office at the regional level (Province, Ko ta Regency). Then a new problem will emerge, namely, whether the Ministry of Public Works and Public Works Offices at the Provincial, Regency, and City Levels, which notes that as a State institution may be subject to imprisonment? bearing in mind that the formulation of criminal sanctions formulated in article 273 is in the form of sanctions of imprisonment and alternative fines so that they will also cause problems in their application.
Indeed, it can be found about the concept or understanding of the road organizer in Law Number 38 of 2004 concerning Roads, wherein article 1 number 14 it is stated explicitly "The organizer of the road is the party that carries out the arrangement, guidance, construction, and supervision of the road following its authority" 4 . in the sense of the road What is the policy that will be carried out when the Law is not operational due to the absence of the norm?

METHODOLOGY
This research is normative, the use of this method is done through the study of legal materials, both primary legal materials, secondary legal materials tertiary legal materials. The specification of this research is the pure legal research to obtain a description of one problem, namely the criminal responsibility of the road organizer from the perspective of Law Number 22 of2009, concerning Traffic and Road Transportation. By going through the legislative approach (normative approach), which is the approach to the applicable laws and regulations to obtain a basis or basis in discussing issues, including legislation Law Number 22 of2009, concerning Traffic and Road Transportation Law Number 38 Year 2004 concerning Roads, Government Regulation Number 43 Year 1993 concerning Road Infrastructure and Traffic. related to traffic and road transport crimes.

Criminal liability of road organizers according to Law Number 22 Year 2009, Regar ding Road Traffic and Transportation. A. The Concept of Road Organizers in Law Number 22 Year 2009, Regarding Road T raffic and Transportation. Law Number 22
Year 2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transport, is a renewal of Law Number 14 of 1992 concerning Road Traffic and Transportation. The basic concept of this L aw is "that Traffic and Road Transportation as part of the national transportation system m ust develop their potential and role to realize security, safety, order and smoothness of road traffic and transportation to support economic development and regional development". To realize this security, Law Number 22 of2009 regulates who can be punished, what actions a nd sanctions can be imposed. One of the legal subjects regulated in Law Number 22 Year 20 09 is Road Administrators. Article 24 paragraph (1), the Organizer of the Road shall be oblig ed immediately and properly to repair the damaged road which can occur a traffic accident. Next, paragraph (2) If repair of a damaged road as referred to in paragraph (1) cannot yet b e carried out, the organizer of the road shall provide a sign on the damaged road to prevent the occurrence of a traffic accident.
The question is who is the road organizer? Factually, the Law Number 22 Year 2009 d oes not provide a concept/understanding of the "Road Organizer", both in Chapter I Article 1 About the definition, and in the explanation of Article by Article. To answer the above que stions, an in-depth analysis is needed relating to the norms or legal norms regulated in Law Number 22 Year 2009 Concerning Road Traffic and Transport and its derivatives, it is even possible to study other relevant laws that may be used as material analysis.
In Law Number 22 Year 2009, it can be said to be a law that is not good because of the requirements of the good law according to Law Number 12 of 2011, concerning the Formati on of Laws and Regulations. One of the principles of the formation of good laws and regulati ons is as stipulated in Article 5, namely: "In forming legislation, it must be based on the principle of the establishment of good l egislation, which includes: a. clarity of purpose; b. the appropriate institutional or forming authority; c. match between type, hierarchy, and material content; d. can be implemented; e. usability; f. clarity of the formula; and g. openness." Article 4 Paragraph (2) PERMA (Rule of The Indonesia Supreme Court) Number. 13 Year 2016 "In imposing a crime against a Corporation, the Judge may assess the Corporation's error as referred to in paragraph (1), including: a. Corporations gain benefits or advantages from these crimes or those criminal acts committed in the interests of the Corporation; b. Corporations allow criminal acts to occur; or c. The corporation does not take the steps necessary to prevent a greater impact.

Law Number 22
Year 2009, has not met the principles of good legal requirements as s pecified in Article 5 of Law Number 12 of 2011, especially in letters d, e and letters f. As a re sult, the criminal formulation as stipulated in Article 24 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) an d Article 273 if a violation occurs, will cause problems related to law enforcement, because of the lack of clarity about the concept of the road organizer as a legal subject. Because the f ormulation of the concept or understanding in law is very important, which serves to provi de an explanation or give meaning to the propositions or words formulated in the article in the law so that the existence of the article becomes a clear and unambiguous or multi-interp retation.

B. Criminal Liability of Road Organizers.
Road organizers are criminal offenses who have rights and obligations and legal respo nsibilities or the rule of law. The intended legal responsibility is a consequence as a result o f an error against violations of norms or legal norms that should be held responsible by the perpetrators when the perpetrators make mistakes that meet the criminal element. Thus "e rror is placed as a determining factor for criminal liability and is not merely seen as a menta l element in criminal acts." "A person found guilty of wrongdoing is a matter of criminal lia bility." To be able to impose criminal sanctions on perpetrators, the legal rules regarding crim inal liability serve as determinants of the conditions that must exist in the perpetrators so t hat they are valid if the perpetrators are given criminal sanctions as a result of their mistak es. "Criminal liability relating to the matter of the makers of a criminal offense, rules regardi ng criminal liability are regulations on how to treat those who violate obligations To be able to impose criminal sanctions on perpetrators for committing crimes, the le gal rules regarding criminal liability serve as determinants of the conditions that must exist in the perpetrators so that they are valid if the perpetrators are given criminal sanctions as a result of their mistakes. "Criminal liability relating to the matter of the makers of a crimin al offense, rules regarding criminal liability are regulations on how to treat those who violat e obligations". In the science of criminal law, criminal liability is defined as a criminal liability or refe rred to by other terms criminal responsibility is a form of responsibility for mistakes comm itted by perpetrators of crime, where the act he committed is an act that the community con siders to be a despicable act, therefore, these actions must be held responsible to the perpet rators or legal subjects. There are several criminal liability requirements, namely: Capable of being responsible, that the perpetrators can be legally accounted for, the co ncept of being able to be responsible is related to the concept of punishment, meaning that t he perpetrators of criminal acts can be subject to criminal sanctions as long as the acts have fulfilled the elements of the norms of criminal law which are violated.
There is an error, the intention is that there is an element of intent or negligence of th e perpetrators of the crime, the intentional or negligence of the perpetrators of the crime m ust understand the element of consciousness or awareness with the possibility.
There is no excuse for forgiveness, that the form of the ability to be held responsible fo r a crime directed at the perpetrators of a crime, or in other terms to the perpetrators of a c riminal act is deemed incapable of being responsible due to several factors attached to the p erpetrator.
Basically, there are two forms of mistakes in criminal law, namely in the form of intent and negligence. The difference between the two forms of error is that "the intentional behav ior of the offender does indeed violate the norm, whereas in neglect the inner attitude of the perpetrator simply does not heed the legal prohibition so he is not careful in carrying out an act that gives rise to a prohibited state." As a form of error in criminal law, the difference be tween the two is only in quality, so that the road organizer does not immediately repair dam aged roads causing traffic accidents as regulated in Law No. 22 of 2009 concerning Traffic T ransportation.
Therefore, the road organizers that do not repair damaged roads immediately can be s aid to have the ability to be responsible, this is because the road organizers make mistakes i n the form of: a. Do not repair damaged roads immediately resulting in traffic accidents; b) Do not give warnings or signs on damaged roads that have not been repaired; c) Does not meet the security and safety standards for traffic road. Although it has been clearly stated in the provisions of Article 273 of Law Number. 22 of 2009 concerning Road Transportation Traffic that a road organizer can be convicted of a criminal offense, but in that law, there is no provision for who is meant by the road organize r, either in the formulation of the concept or article by article explanation. Therefore, Article 24 juncto (in correlation with). Article 273 of Law Number 22 Year 2009 concerning Traffic and Road Transportation is an article that is not operational because there are still vague n orms c. Are Road organizers as a legal subject?
In several laws and regulations in Indonesia, the corporation has been treated as a leg al subject in addition to the subject of human law, but the existence of the subject of corpora te law is different from the subject of human law. As a legal subject, the corporation is possi ble in carrying out its activities in carrying out deviant actions that are organizational. "The refore, to understand corporate crime, as an organized crime, which is a crime that occurs i n the context of a relationship that is loaded with hopes and desires among stakeholders na mely the commissioners, the board of directors, and managers on one side and between the central office, parts, and branches on the other side." With the acceptance of the corporation as a subject of criminal law, it turns out to caus e problems in our criminal law, especially those concerning criminal liability issues at the c orporation. The important thing that must be considered concerning the element of error, a s a form of corporate criminal responsibility can be made possible, whether the element of e rror in the corporation can be equated as in humans, whether the corporation can be convic ted as a human being or not. Considering that a corporation is a form of a legal entity that m oves because there is a mover in the form of an "administrator", namely a human being. Con sidering that the form of criminal sanctions in the field of criminal law is not only criminal s anctions for fines but there are other forms of sanctions in the form of loss of independence namely prison and confinement even sanctions in the form of capital punishment sanctions, such sanctions may not be imposed on corporations, to determine Corporate criminal liabili ty commonly uses the doctrine or principle of liability without errors (strict liability) and vi carious liability. "The principle of strict liability in corporate responsibility does not need to prove the existence of an element of error in the corporation and the vicarious liability prin ciple states that corporations can be held responsible for the actions of others in the enviro nment of their business activities." The problem is the extent to which corporate mistakes c an be limited by adhering to the doctrines of strict liability and vicarious liability Referring to the subtitles above, are road organizers legal subjects? to be able to say th at road organizers as legal subjects need to pay attention to several clauses as well as corpo rations. Considering the corporation as a legal entity that is driven by (human) managemen t, so is the case with the road organizer, except that the difference between the road organiz er is an institution that is within the scope of government both the central and regional gov ernments responsible for road construction and repair, which in this case is the Ministry of Public Works and Public Works in the Provincial Government and Regency / City Governme nt which is organizationally and structurally controlled by humans as responsible officials i n the scope of their responsibilities by their respective positions and authorities.
The issue is regarding Road Organizers who are subject to criminal law, where there a re criminal sanctions if "the road organizer does not carry out obligations towards damaged roads resulting in traffic accidents. If the obligation is not carried out resulting in a traffic ac cident, which results in other people with minor injuries, serious injuries, even death and d amage to property there is an alternative sanction of imprisonment and fines." Considering this provision is a responsibility that must be carried out, then in the event of a traffic accid ent that results in a legal consequence, the road organizer must be held criminally responsi ble as well as a form of criminal liability for mistakes made.
Thus, road organizers as legal subjects should be criminally accountable by referring t o the principle of strict liability and vicarious liability, meaning that the form of criminal lia bility of road organizers according to the principle of `stric liability 'does not need to prove t he existence of an element of error either intentional or negligence. Because the organizer o f the road as a government agency should be responsible for the obligations attached to it. L ikewise according to the principle of vicarious liability that the organizer of the road can be held responsible for acts that are indeed given authority and responsibility by the state. As t he person in charge and at the same time as the holder of the mandate, the road organizer s hould carry it out with a sense of responsibility based on the rules of law and procedures as they should without conditions. The problem is that: First, the road organizer as a governm ent institution is bound by procedures and governance and financial mechanisms related to budget issues that can sometimes hinder the process of carrying out work according to the r esponsibilities it carries aside from weather factors. Second, in the event of an accident that results in the occurrence of legal events as determined in Article

CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion above, it is can be concluded that in Law Number 22 Year 1999, regarding Road Traffic and Transportation, does not provide an explanation or concept regarding road organizers, so when there are norms are governing criminal liability towards road organizers, as regulated in Article 24 and Article 273, there are obstacles and gaps in the implementation. From the aspect of criminal liability, the road organizer is identical to the corporation, only the management system distinguishes it from the corporation in general. The management system in the road organizer is bound by structural bureaucracy both at the central and regional levels. However, if there is an error on the road, the road organizer should still be able to take responsibility by referring to the theory of stric liability and vecarius lebility. Therefore, Law Number 22 Year 2009 Concerning Road Traffic and Transportation, there are unclear norms, specifically regarding the concept of road organizers. Consequently, when an error occurs as a result of a damaged road and resulting in a traffic accident, causing physical loss to the victim, minor injuries, severe injuries, even death and damage to property, it is difficult to be implemented, due to the provisions of Article 24 and Article 273 of the Law Law Number 22 of 2009 is a non-operational provision. The suggestion for the problem according to the author is that there are alternative solutions by