scholarly journals Elements Testings Distortion of the Abuse of Authority Based on the Government Administration Law and Corruption Crime

Corruptio ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-60
Author(s):  
Putri Nurmala Sari Siahaan
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
As If

It is expected that the existence of the Government Administration Law is expected to be a solution so that there is no expression of “bad suspicion” against government officials in making decisions accused of causing losses to state finances. In addition, the GA Law is expected to become a reference for government officials in making decisions so that there is no abuse of authority. These two cargoes are a small part that is regulated in the GA Law. Regarding the abuse of authority itself, there have been specific regulations derived from the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2015 concerning Guidelines for Procedures in the Assessment of the Elements of Abuse of Authority. The problem that arises in examining the elements of abuse of power lies in the law enforcement process. The Perma Abuse of Authority states that the Court has the authority to accept, examine, and decide upon the appraisal request whether there is an abuse of authority in the Decisions and/or Actions of Government Officials before the criminal process. From the field facts, through case analysis, there are findings that government officials who submitted applications for the element of abuse of power did not heed the provisions in the Perma. In the two cases discussed, it appears that, in fact, the instrument of testing whether or not there is an element of abuse of authority is only used as an attempt to hide oneself from being ensnared from corruption. It is as if the petitioner has become a victim in the act of abuse of authority over the action or decision he has taken. However, the facts show otherwise where the applicant legally and convincingly committed a criminal act of corruption. It can be said that the use of the concept of testing the elements of abuse of authority is intended to be deviant and biased from the ideals of the concept.

scholarly journals Misconception on the Authority Abuse of Power in the Law Enforcement against Corruption

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Sadjijono Sadjijono ◽  
Bagus Teguh Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction

Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration brings the strength and the averment on the performance of the governmental functions which include executive, legislative, and juridical in order to provide the public services (bestuurzorg). Such regulation also aims to prevent and to eliminate any kinds of the maladministration done by the government officials/organs in implementing their functions so that good governance can be realized. In implementing their function, the government should rely on the useful performance (doelmatigheid) and the effectiveness (doeltreffenhgeid) according to the norms of each authority. It is a sophism when the ‘authority’ and/or the ‘competence’ mentioned under the Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration are defined differently in the letterlijk gramatikal wet without associating those terms with an understanding of bevoegheid in an administrative legal concept. An idea that distinctively defines the term ‘competence’ as a right and ‘authority’ as a power is considered as an inconsistent idea, which may cause dualism and distortion in the common law enforcement reffering to the administrative law, particularly related to the concept of the authority abuse of power mentioned under the Law No. 31/ 1999 amended by the Law No. 20/ 2001 on deeds against corruption. As the result, when the notion of ‘authority abuse of power’ is defined as a right (as mentioned in article 1, subsection 5 jo. article 17, Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration), it will be characterized into the absolute competence of the administrative jurisdiction, and when the notion of ‘authority abuse of power’ is defined as a power (as mentioned in article 3, Law No. 31/ 1999 on deeds against corruption), it will be characterized into the absolute competence of the corruption-act jurisdiction. Meanwhile, implementing the government’s ‘competence’ and/or ‘authority’ is characterized into one concept based on the norms of the authority power.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

scholarly journals Expansion of the Objects of State Administrative Disputes after the Enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 Concerning Government Administration and Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 Concerning Guidelines for the Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies or Officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad / OOD)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 383
Author(s):  
Sonyendah Retnaningsih ◽  
Disriani Latifah Soroinda Nasution ◽  
Heryna Oktaviani ◽  
Muhammad Rizqi Alfarizi Ramadhan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Government Action ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

Historically, State Administrative Court (PTUN) has existed since 1986, with the enactment of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court which currently has been amended by Law Number 9 of 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court and amended again by Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. The role of the Administrative Court according to the explanation of the law, the PTUN functions as a control or supervisory agency thus legal actions from government officials do not deviate, in addition to protecting the rights of citizens from the actions of officials who abuse their authority or act arbitrarily. Currently, the object of dispute and can be sued at the State Administrative Court is only a State Administration decision reduced by the exceptions stipulated in Article 2 and Article 49 of the PTUN Law. The provisions of Article 3 of the Administrative Court Law No. 5 of 1986 on negative fictitious could potentially no longer be enforced since the enactment of Article 53 of the AP Law which stipulates positive fictitious. Since the promulgation of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (hereinafter referred to as AP Law) on 17 October 2014, there has been a change in the legal criteria from the government written stipulation (beschikkingen) which was initially restrictive and can be sued to the PTUN, yet it has recently become extensive (which was originally mere beschkking, currently it almost covers all variations of besluiten). With the enactment of the AP Law, there will be an expansion of absolute competence and objects of state administration disputes, as stipulated in Article 87 of the AP Law which includes: first, Government Administration Decrees, as stipulated in Article 1 point 7 of the AP Law; second, Government Administration Actions Based on Article 1 point 8 of the AP Law. Furthermore, with the enactment of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and the Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD), the judicial power shall transfer from the General Court to the State Administrative Court. This crucial matter continues to be the groundwork and reason for conducting the current research entitled the expansion of the state administration dispute object after the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and the supreme court regulation (Perma) Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by the Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD). Conducted through normative juridical research method, this research-based paper examined the interviews through judges at PTUN Jakarta and Bandung and the main data source within this qualitative analysis serves as the secondary data or literature data.

Carvalho Yeo and the 1928 Hong Kong Treasury Swindle

Meeting Place ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Munn
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Early Twentieth Century ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Asian Cities ◽  
The Government ◽  
Individual Choices

In 1928 Carvalho Yeo was accused of stealing more than a quarter of a million dollars from the Government Treasury through an elaborate cheque fraud. Yeo was traced to Shanghai and brought back to Hong Kong, where, after a sensational trial before the Supreme Court, he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. His actions exposed chaotic management in the Treasury and brought into question the competence of senior government officials. Carvalho Yeo was a man of ‘mysterious antecedents and doubtful nationality’ – a criminal wanted by police in other Asian cities before he came to Hong Kong. Possibly of ‘Sino-Siamese’ origins, he presented himself by turns as a Chinese, a Portuguese, and a British subject, and deployed various aliases, fictional partners, and fake companies to carry out his plans. His story fascinated the Hong Kong public as much as it embarrassed the authorities. The chapter asks what Yeo’s manipulation of identities tells us about relations between the communities in early twentieth-century Hong Kong and suggests that, while racial divides were real and often rigid, individual choices sometimes challenged this rigidity, even – as in Carvalho Yeo’s case – to the point of making a farce out of the divides.

scholarly journals TANGGUNGJAWAB NEGARA MELINDUNGI GURU DALAM MELAKSANAKAN TUGAS PROFESIONALNYA

2020 ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Yuli Asmara Triputra ◽  
Derry Angling Kesuma ◽  
Silvana Oktanisa ◽  
Wasitoh Meirani
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The State ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Professional Educators ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

Abstrak Guru adalah pendidik profesional yang tugas dan perannya telah diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Negara selaku pemangku kewajiban dalam melindungi warga negara terkhusus guru, dituntut peran aktifnya dalam melindungi guru dari tindakan kriminalisasi akibat melaksanakan tugas profesionalnya. Pada tataran peraturan, pemerintah telah melakukan tindakan aktif berupa pengundangan beberapa peraturan terkait tugas dan peran guru. Namun dalam taraf penegakan hukum, masih sering ditemui guru yang berhadapan dengan hukum akibat laporan dari orang tua murid atas tindakan guru yang mendisiplinkan murid. Mahkamah Agung selaku judex juris, melalui Putusan Nomor : 1554K/ Pid/ 2013 telah memvonis bebas guru di Majalengka yang bernama Aop Saopudin selaku terdakwa karena Mahkamah Agung menganggap apa yang dilakukannya sudah menjadi tugasnya dan bukan bukan merupakan suatu tindak pidana dan terdakwa tidak dapat dijatuhi pidana atas perbuatan/tindakannya tersebut karena bertujuan untuk mendidik agar menjadi murid yang baik dan berdisiplin. Putusan Mahkamah Agung merupakan wujud tanggungjawab negara melalui lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman memberikan perlindungan terhadap guru dalam melaksanakan tugas profesionalnya. Kata Kunci : Tanggungjawab negara, Perlindungan, Guru. Abstract Teachers are professional educators whose duties and roles have been regulated in the legislation. The state as a stakeholder in protecting citizens, especially teachers, is required to play an active role in protecting teachers from criminalization due to carrying out their professional duties. At the regulatory level, the government has taken active action in the form of the invite of several regulations related to the duties and roles of teachers. However, in law enforcement level, there are still often teachers who face the law due to reports from parents of students for the actions of teachers who discipline students. The Supreme Court as judex juris, through The Verdict Number: 1554K / Pid / 2013 has sentenced a free teacher in Majalengka named Aop Saopudin as a defendant because the Supreme Court considers what he did has become his duty and not a criminal act and the defendant can not be sentenced for his actions because it aims to educate to be a good student and disciplined. The Supreme Court's decision is a manifestation of the state's responsibility through the institution of judicial power to provide protection to teachers in carrying out their professional duties.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

Summary of Results

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Networked Economy

The persuasive force of the accepted account’s property logic has driven antitrust and intellectual property law jurisprudence for at least the past three decades. It has been through the theory of trademark ownership and the commercial strategy of branding that these laws led the courts to comprehend markets as fundamentally bifurcated—as operating according to discrete types of interbrand and intrabrand competition—a division that had an effect far beyond the confines of trademark law and resonates today in the way government agencies and courts evaluate the emerging challenges of the networked economy along the previously introduced distinction between intertype and intratype competition. While the government in its appeal to the Supreme Court in ...

scholarly journals LAWSUIT IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON PERMA NO. 6 OF 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 458
Author(s):  
Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration very much changes the paradigm of the proceedings in the State Administrative Court. One of the fundamental things is about administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. Under Article 75 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, citizens who feel disadvantaged by a Government’s Decision or Action can file an administrative proceedings, and then file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court. Regarding this regulation, two interpretations arise regarding the obligation of administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. One party argues that the administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings must be carried out before filing a lawsuit in the Court, and the other argues this is not mandatory. For a period of four years, the interpretation of the obligation of administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration is floating in the realm of discourse. It was only on December 4th, 2018 that the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 6 of 2018 concerning Guidelines for Resolving Disputes Regarding Government Administration After Administrative Proceedings, finally the Supreme Court dictates that administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings is a must. However, the PERMA does not regulate fundamental things regarding lawsuit after administrative proceedings, namely, who will be seated as the defendant, and what is the object of the lawsuit. In addition, there are also a number of things that needed to be reviewed regarding the arrangements in the PERMA, such as regarding the deadline for a lawsuit in the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document