scholarly journals An Overview on the Abuse of Power in the Perspective of Corruption Law and Government Administration Law in Indonesia Based on the Criminal Justice System and the State Administration of the Justice System

2017 ◽  
Vol 96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seno Wibowo Gumbira . ◽  
Ratna Nurhayati .

The abuse of power in Indonesia has been regulated in the realm of administrative law at the Law No. 30 Year 2014 on Government Administrationand Law No. 31 Year 1999 jo Law No. 20 Year 2001 onCorruption Eradication. The arrangement in those lawshas created an overlapping, overcriminilization and disharmony of law. This can be seen in Law No 30 Year 2014 on Goverment Administration,the sanctions of the abuse of powerare simply to return loss and can also be accompanied by dismissal, while in Law No 31 Year 1999 jo Law No. 20 Year 2001 onthe Eradication of Corruption with or without loss can be imprisoned and returning the loss will not remove the criminal prosecution. Other than that, there are potential linkage in the test to determine a state officials discretions between the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court Post Pretrial Judicial Review Decision to<br />extend the authority of the Pretrial.<br /><br />Keywords: the Abuse of Power, Goverment Administration Law, Corruption Eradication Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seno Wibowo Gumbir ◽  
Ratna Nurhayati

<p align="center"><strong><em>Abstract</em></strong></p><p><em>The abuse of power in Indonesia has been  regulated in the realm of administrative law at the Law Number 30 Year 2014 </em><em>on</em><em> Government Administrationand Law Number 31 </em><em>Year</em><em> 1999 jo Law Number  20 </em><em>Year</em><em> 2001 </em><em>on</em><em> The Corruption Eradication. The arrangement in those lawshas created an overlapping, overcriminilization and disharmony of law. This can be seen in Law  No 30 </em><em>Year</em><em> 2014 </em><em>on</em><em> Goverment Administration,the sanctions of  the abuse of powerare simply to return loss and can also be accompanied by dismissal, while in Law No 31 </em><em>Year </em><em>1999 jo Law Number</em><em> 20 Year</em><em> 2001 </em><em>on</em><em>the Eradication of Corruption with or without loss can be imprisoned and returning the loss will not remove the criminal prosecution. Other than that, there are potential linkage in the test to determine a state officials discretions between the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court Post Pretrial Judicial Review Decision to extend the authority of the Pretrial.</em></p><em>Keywords: </em>the Abuse of Power<strong>, </strong>Goverment Administration Law<em>, </em>Corruption Eradication Law


2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Seno Wibowo Gumbira

Abstrak Permasalahan upaya hukum luar biasa pada Peninjauan Kembali khususnya pada proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia Pasca Putusan judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 dan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung RI sama-sama memiliki permasalahan yuridis dan bertentangan dengan asas-asas baik dalam lingkup sistem peradilan pidana dan asas ilmu perundang-undangan di Indonesia, asas tersebut meliputi asas ne bis in idem, asas peradilan cepat, sederhana dan biaya ringan, asas litis finiri oportet, dan sedangkan pada ilmu perundang-undangan asas lex superior derogate legi inferior. Dapat juga dikatakan bahwa judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi berpotensi merusak pilar hukum karena jika menyatakan suatu ketentuan hukum hanya satu undang-undang saja, yang mana peraturan perundang-undangan yang 1 bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undang lainnya seperti contoh Putusan MK Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 pada Pasal 268 ayat 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap tentang Peninjauan Kembali hanya dilakukan 1 kali saja, sedangkan pada Pasal 24 ayat 2 Undang-Undang No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dengan Pasal 66 ayat 1 Undang-Undang No. 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Mahkamah Agung, kedua instrument hukum tersebut menyatakan bahwa pengajuan Peninjauan Kembali hanya dapat diajukan 1 kali. Solusi agar tidak menimbulkan problematika adalah bahwa  Mahkamah Agung tidak perlu menerbitkan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 tersebut, cukup menggunakan Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung yang menyatakan Peninjauan kembali hanya 1 kali, selain itu perlu optimalisasi pembuktian dalam proses peradilan pidana oleh semua pihak. Kata Kunci: judicial review, Peninjauan Kembali, Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Abstract Problems of extraordinary legal remedy on Reconsideration, especially in the criminal justice process in Indonesia following the Ruling of judicial review of the Constitutional Court Number 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 and SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 issued by the Supreme Court had the same problem  juridical in contradictory with the principles both within the criminal justice system and the principle of the science of law in Indonesia, those principles include the principle of ne bis in idem, the principle of justice which one quick, simple and low cost, the principle of litis finiri oportet, It is on the principle of lex superior derogate legi inferior. It can also be said that the judicial review of the Constitutional Court has the potential to undermine the pillars of legal systems as when stating a legal provision is only base on one law, in which is in fact the legislation is incontracdictory with other laws such as of Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 on Article 268 paragraph 3 of Law No. 8 of 1981 that have no binding legal force, meanwhile in Article 24 paragraph 2 of Law No. 48 Year 2009 regarding Judicial Power with Article 66 paragraph 1 of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Supreme Court, both legal instrument states that the filing of a judicial review can only be submitted one time. A solution that does not cause the problems is that the Supreme Court did not need to issue SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 the court simple use the Law of Judicial Power and the Law of the Supreme Court which states Reconsideration should be only one time in addition to the necessary optimize evidence of proof in the criminal justice process by all Parties. Keywords: judicial review, Reconsideration, the Criminal Justice System


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Rifqi Qowiyul Iman

This paper aims to describe the differences and the position of the legal rules for juvenile crimes between Qanun 6 of 2014 and Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System.  This research is descriptive qualitative research. The results show that Qanun Number 6 of 2014 also regulates criminal sanctions for children, which are normatively regulated in Law Number 11 of 2012. In addition, Qanun, as Aceh Islamic criminal law legalizes canning punishment for children, as well as the double-track system adopted by The Law of Juvenile Criminal Justice System is not explicitly accommodated in Qanun. Qanun at the level of a Regional Regulation is part of the hierarchy of laws and regulations that should be in line with what generally applies at the national level. Law Number 11 of 2006 is being the basis of the authority to make Qanun, as long as there is no court decision invalidates it, Qanun Number 6 of 2014, which is a derivative of Law Number 11 of 2006, can be declared as "lex specialis" of The Juvenile Criminal Justice System law which regulates child crime. However, it does not rule out the possibility that in the future, the judicial review of the article can be conducted.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-41
Author(s):  
K. Chockalingam

Historically, priority of the criminal justice system was always to establish the guilt of the accused and provide a punishment to the offender. Even after the advent of scientific criminology, focus was on all aspects of the offender, to the complete neglect of the victim. Victim was always treated as a witness, and victim justice has been a struggle throughout the world. Many scholars and criminal justice administrators recommended urgent measures to improve the conditions of victims, particularly after the historic Report of President’s Task Force in 1982 in the USA. Since then a victimological movement emerged which culminated in the creation of UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985. In this article, the emergence of victimological movement, its impact and the subsequent developments in India are discussed.


2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick N. Parkinson ◽  
Sandra Shrimpton ◽  
Heather Y. Swanston ◽  
Brian I. O'Toole ◽  
R. Kim Oates

As part of a prospective study which tracked 183 child sexual abuse cases referred to two Child Protection Units in Sydney, NSW, a search of court records was conducted to obtain criminal justice outcomes. Of the 183 cases, there were 117 cases where the name of the offender was known. Forty-five cases reached trial. Thirty-two cases resulted in a conviction. A sub-cohort of 84 of the children and their families was interviewed in detail to determine reasons why many cases did not proceed down the track of criminal investigation and prosecution and why other cases dropped out of the criminal justice system. Among this sub-cohort of 84 children, there were 67 cases where the offender was identifiable and could have been charged. There were 25 convictions. Reasons for not proceeding to trial included: the offence was not reported to police; parents wished to protect children, the perpetrator or other family members; evidence was not strong enough to warrant proceeding; the child was too young; the offender threatened the family; or the child was too distressed. The implications for criminal prosecution as a child protection strategy are considered in the light of this evidence of attrition.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Cossyleon ◽  
John Orwat ◽  
Christine George ◽  
Don Stemen ◽  
Whitney Key

Purpose The Cook County State Attorneys’ Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP) is a pre-trial diversionary program that accepts first-time, non-violent defendants charged with a felony crime. The purpose of this paper is to document the development, implementation, and program patterns of the DPP to better understand the program’s scope and reach in diverting defendants from traditional criminal prosecution. Design/methodology/approach The approach to evaluating Cook County’s DPP is primarily qualitative. Through interviews with program administrators and current and former participants, the authors document the process of creating and implementing such DPP that aims to avoid a felony conviction altogether. The authors provide program participant patterns to shed light on the program’s scope and reach in diverting defendants from traditional felony prosecution. Findings Using data from staff, administrators, and program participants, the authors found that the DPP was developed and implemented through supportive leadership who instilled a culture of collaboration and buy-in. Expanding the program could include increasing the capacity of DPP to include additional participants or having a DPP incorporated into each branch court, instead of the centralized system under which it currently operates. Increasing the capacity and scope of the program could both further decrease criminal court caseloads and most importantly avoid a higher number of stigmatizing felony convictions for first-time non-violent defendants. Practical implications DPPs are cost effective and can be easily implemented within existing systems. Collaboration and buy-in from all stakeholders are crucial to the program’s success. DPP offers opportunities for expansion. Increasing the capacity and scope of the program could both further decrease criminal court caseloads and most importantly avoid a higher number of stigmatizing felony convictions for first-time non-violent felony defendants. Originality/value The main goals of DPP were two-fold. The first was to minimize the level of resources allocated for non-violent offenders in the criminal justice system by diverting such defendants out of the criminal justice system early in the process and reducing the recidivism rates of program participants. The second aimed to provide an option for eligible defendants to avoid a felony conviction, thereby avoiding the collateral consequences associating with a felony conviction.


1987 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Resick

The purposes of this article are to review research on psychological reactions to criminal victimization, to consider how victims might be affected by participation in the criminal justice system, and to offer some recommendations for the treatment of victims and their families within the criminal justice system. Over the past ten years there have been a series of studies conducted to examine the long-term effects of rape victims. Recently a study was conducted to compare the reactions of robbery victims with rape victims and to compare female and male robbery victims. This article will review the findings from these longitudinal studies with particular attention to victim reactions that may affect or be affected by participation in criminal prosecution.


Author(s):  
Arfan Faiz Muhlizi

<p>Instrumen hukum paling klasik untuk melaksanakan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan guna mewujudkan masyarakat yang adil dan makmur adalah Hukum Administrasi Negara (HAN). Untuk mencapai tujuan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan tersebut, birokrasi menjadi alat yang efektif didalam menjalankan pengelolaan negara. Persoalan hukum dari birokrasi yang menjadi permasalahan saat ini adalah persinggungan asas legalitas ( wetmatigheid ) dan diskresi ( pouvoir discretionnaire ) pejabat negara (eksekutif). Tulisan ini berusaha menjawab permasalahan di atas dengan lebih menitikberatkan bahasan mengenai “diskresi” dalam hukum administrasi. Dengan metode yuridis normative, penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa diskresi memang diperlukan dalam hukum administrasi, khususnya di dalam menyelesaikan persoalan dimana peraturan perundang-undangan belum mengaturnya atau hanya mengatur secara umum. Disamping itu diskresi juga diperlukan dalam hal terdapat prosedur yang tidak dapat diselesaikan menurut administrasi yang normal. Dengan demikian penataan Hukum Administrasi menjadi sangat penting dan tentunya bukan sekedar melihat dari sisi pembentukan atau penataan peraturan perundang-undangan terkait administrasi negara, tetapi lebih jauh dari itu adalah penataan tatanan hukum yang terdiri dari struktur, substansi, dan kultur masyarakat, birokrasi, dan penegak hukum.</p><p>The most classical legal instruments to carry out government administration in order to realize a just and prosperous society is the Law of State Administration (HAN). To achieve the objectives of the government, the bureaucracy into an effective tool in the management of state run. Legal issues of bureaucracy which is the case today is the intersection of the principle of legality (wetmatigheid) and discretionary (pouvoir discretionnaire) state officials (executive). This article tries to answer the above problems with a more focused discussion on the “discretion” in administrative law. With normative juridical methods, the study concluded that discretion was necessary in administrative law, especially in solving problems in which the legislation has not been set or simply set in general. Besides, discretion is also required in case there are procedures that cannot be resolved according to the normal administration. Thus the arrangement of Administrative Law to be very important and certainly not just a look from the side of the formation or arrangement of the legislation related to state administration, but further than that is the arrangement of the legal order which consists of the structure, substance, and the culture of the society, bureaucracy, and enforcement the law.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-236
Author(s):  
Yodi Nugraha

In the Indonesian criminal justice system, every public prosecutor possesses the authority to cease criminal prosecution in the name of public interest. In contrast, in the Netherland, only the Attorney General (Procureur Generaal) at the Supreme Court has this authority.  This article discusses this authority to cease of terminate criminal prosecution in the name of public interest.  To do this a comparative approach is used in which the ruling of this authority to terminate criminal prosecution as found in the Draft of the Indonesian Criminal Code will be compared against the same regulation and policy used in the Netherlands.  A doctrinal and comparative law approach will be used. One recommendation resulting from this research is the need to re-evaluate the existing procedure and requirement of terminating criminal prosecution in the public interest in the Indonesian context and the introduction of Rechter-Commissaris into the criminal justice system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Didik Riyanto

Diskresi merupakan suatu kebijaksanaan berupa tindakan yang dilakukan oleh penyidik menurut penilaiannya sendiri sebagai jalan keluar terhadap suatu perkara yang dianggap ringan, tidak efektif serta menimbulkan dampak buruk dari Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Diskresi dilakukan oleh penyidik pada dasarnya lebih mengutamakan pencapaian tujuan sasarannya (doelmatigheid) daripada legalitas hukum yang berlaku (rechtsmatigheid). Permasalahan yang diangkat oleh penulis, adalah 1) Apakah peraturan perundang-undangan yang ada sudah cukup komprehensif bagi tindakan diskresi penyidik Kepolisian di dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana (Criminal Justice System)?, 2) Bagaimana pelaksanaan atau pola-pola kebijaksanaan yang dilakukan penyidik Kepolisian Resor Tulungagung di dalam menggunakan wewenang diskresi?, dan 3) Faktor-faktor apa yang mempengaruhi, mendorong dan menghambat seorang penyidik pada Polres Jtulungagung selaku aparat penegak hukum dalam melakukan diskresi penyidikan pada Sat Reskrim Polres Jepara.? Adapun tujuan dari penulisan tesis ini adalah sebagai berikut: 1) Untuk mengetahui peraturan perundang-undangan yang komprehensif bagi tindakan diskresi Kepolisian dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana (Criminal Justice System), 2) mengetahui pelaksanaan dari wewenang diskresi yang dimiliki oleh Polisi, 3) mengetahui faktor-faktor apa saja yang mendorong dan menjadi penghambat petugas penyidik untuk melakukan diskresi Kepolisian pada saat penyidikan di Sat Reskrim Polres Tulungagung. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah sosiologis yuridis (juridical sociological). Hasil dalam penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pelaksanaan diskresi pada saat penyidikan di Sat Reskrim Polres Tulungagung diilhami dari Batang Tubuh Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHAP), Undang-Undang No. 2 Tahun 2002 Tentang Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia, ketentuan hukum tidak tertulis yang masih diakui keberadaannya dan doktrin para ahli hukum serta yurisprudensi yang berguna sebagai petimbangan dalam pelaksanaan tindakan diskresi oleh penyidik. Pelaksanaan diskresi oleh penyidik diberikan secara utuh kepada para penyidik menurut penilaiannya sendiri dengan bertanggungjawab dan tetap mempertimbangkan atas kepentingan umum dan tetap menjunjung tinggi hak asasi manusia (human right). Selain itu dalam pelaksanaan tindakan diskresi oleh penyidik terdapat beberapa faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Faktor pendorong internal terdiri atas subtansi peraturan perundang-undangan, instruksi dari pihak atasan, penyidik sebagai penegak hukum, situasi dalam penyidikan. Faktor pendorong eksternal adalah dukungan dari masyarakat. Disamping itu terdapat faktor penghambat dalam diskresi, diantaranya adalah masih lemahnya penegakan hukum di Indonesia, kendala finansial, oknum aparat, pengetahuan penyidik, partisipasi para pihak. Berdasarkan penelitian tersebut disarankan bagi penyidik selaku aparat Kepolisian yakni tindakan diskresi menurut penilaiannya sendiri secara kontektstual mempunyai makna yang sangat luas akan tetapi tindakan tersebut dilakukan tidak serta merta secara asal-asalan akan tetapi tetap patuh pada batas-batas yang telah ditentukan perundangan-undangan pada Pasal 16 ayat (2) Undang-Undang No. 2 Tahun 2002 Tentang Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia. Bagi masyarakat hendaknya dalam pelaksanaan tindakan diskresi oleh penyidik harus dilakukan langkah pengawasan yang baik, supaya tidak ada bentuk penyalahgunaan kekuasaan (abuse of power) dalam pelaksanaan diskresi oleh Penyidik, sehingga diskresi yang dilakukan oleh penyidik tetap suatu bentuk efektifitas dan efisiensi perkara pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana yang bertujuan pada pencapaian keadilan


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document