scholarly journals PERANAN KEJAKSAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA DALAM PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI DI NEGARA DEMOKRASI (Role of The Attorney General of Indonesia in Eradicating Corruption in State Democracy)

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Suharyo Suharyo

PERANAN KEJAKSAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIADALAM PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI DI NEGARA DEMOKRASI(Role of The Attorney General of Indonesia in Eradicating Corruption in State Democracy) The Attorney General of Indonesia plays a strategic position in corruption eradication. Since IndonesiaIndependent Day on 17 August 1945 until now, the attorney general keeps eradicate the corruption. As one of the elements of criminal justice system of the democracy state refers to the Act No.16/2004 on the Attorney General of Republic of Indonesia, and also a concern with the Act No.8/1981 on the Criminal Code (KUHAP). Corruption eradication is ruled and stipulated on the Act No.31/1999 on Corruption Eradication Jo the Act No.20/2001, and supported the Act No.8/2010 on the Criminal Act of Money Laundering . Questions of this research were what obstacles of corruption eradication in attorneys and how to make it effective? It was a normative-juridical method. It was  an impression that the Attorney General has no dare to enforce the law for the elite politician, local officials (governors,majors) because of their strong relationship with. This phenomenon triggered scholars to do long march and protest to the Attorney General to be consistent and responsive in corruption eradication. Good governance and bureaucracy reform had no big impact, the meaning of “Tri Atmaka” and “Tri Karma Adhyaksa” had truly not been absorbed and practiced, yet. Keywords: The Attorney General of Indonesia in eradicating corruption ABSTRAK Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia memegang posisi sangat strategis dalam pemberantasan korupsi. SejakProklamasi Kemerdekaan 17 Agustus 1945 sampai sekarang, Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia terus menerus melakukan pemberantasan korupsi. Sebagai salah satu unsur dari  sistem peradilan pidana (Criminal Justice System) di dalam negara demokrasi Kejaksaan RI mengacu pada Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan RI, dan juga memperhatikan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP). Khusus untuk pemberantasan korupsi, diatur melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tidak Pidana Korupsi no Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001, dan ditunjang Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2010 Tentang Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang. Adapun rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah apakah kendala yang melekat jajaran Kejaksaan dalam pemberantasan korupsi, serta Bagaimana mengefektifkan Kejaksaan RI dalam pemberantasan korupsi. Metode yang dipakai adalah yuridis normatif.Terdapat kesan, Kejaksaan RI sangat tumpul pada pelaku dari elit politik, dan pejabat daerah (Gubernur, Bupati/Walikota) yang mempunyai koneksi politik yang kuat.Sehingga tidaklah mengherankan, apabila di berbagai daerah, muncul aksi-aksi unjuk rasa dari kalangan mahasiswa yang menuntut Kejaksaan RI agar konsisten dan responsif dalam pemberantasan korupsi. Good Governance dan reformasi birokrasi, hanya berpengaruh positif, secara minimal. Makna Tri Atmaka, serta Tri Karma Adhyaksa, kurang diresapi dan kurang  diamalkan secara mendalam. Kata Kunci: Kejaksaan RI dalam pemberantasan korupsi

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Muhammad Arif Agus ◽  
Ari Susanto

The purpose of this research is to examine and analyze (1) the role of Correctional Centers in the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia; and (2) the Optimization of the Role of Correctional Centers in the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia. The research method used is a normative juridical approach. The results of the research concluded; (1) Correctional Centers in the juvenile criminal justice system and in the adult criminal justice system both have a role, but the role of Correctional Centers in the adult criminal justice system has not been optimized as in the juvenile criminal justice system, and it tends to be discriminatory. (2) The optimization of the role of Correctional Centers in the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia needs to be carried out, because by optimizing the role of Correctional Centers, especially Correctional Research on adult cases, it will eliminate discrimination in treatment between children and adults and Correctional Research can be used as a reference for law enforcers. As a recommendation, it is suggested that in the Criminal Law Reform in Indonesia, both related to the renewal of the Criminal Procedure Law Code (KUHAP); the Criminal Code (KUHP); as well as the Corrections Law, the discrimination in making Correctional Research on juvenile cases and adult cases should be abolished, because it has no value of justice. The equalization of treatment related to Correctional Research will optimize the role of Correctional Research and also other law enforcers in achieving the value of justice in Indonesia.


Temida ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alenka Selih

The paper presents the ways of introducing both material and procedural alternative measures into the criminal justice system of Slovenia from the beginning of 1990s, particularly into the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1995 (with the further amendments). That relates to both adult and juvenile offenders. Regarding implementation, the author emphasizes characteristics of the implementation of both groups of institutions; pays attention to the fact that procedural institutions are more important for prosecution of minor criminal offences; points out the importance of the personal factor that contributes to the implementation of new provisions; and gives an overview of the first experiment in the Slovenian judiciary related to that. The author gives an analysis of problems dealt with in the Slovenian doctrine and judicial practice in connection with alternative ways of proceeding; she points out, in particular, the imperfections of legal solutions; the unclear competences in implementation of alternative sanctions and problems resulting from such a situation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document