scholarly journals BATASAN TERHADAP IMUNITAS ADVOKAT YANG DIPERLUAS BERDASARKAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 26/PUU-XI/2013

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-48
Author(s):  
Oey Valentino Winata ◽  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Professional Code ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The basis for granting immunity to advocates is in Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003, that advocates cannot be prosecuted both civil and criminal in carrying out their professional duties in good faith in the interests of the Client's defense in court proceedings. The immunity obtained by advocates is not only within the scope of the court, but also protects it outside the court. The immunity has been expanded based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 26 / PUU-XI / 2013. The granting of immunity to such advocates is considered as an act that violates the provisions of Article 28 D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, that everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee protection and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law. However, the right to immunity from lawsuits (immunity) to advocates does not conflict with Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution if given with limitations to advocates who are one of law enforcers in Indonesia, these restrictions apply both outside and in court proceedings. The limitation is in the form of a professional code of ethics and legislation, as well as good faith. Any action that goes beyond or beyond these three limits cannot be protected by immunity, so that if one of the three limits is exceeded, advocates can be legally processed and sentenced based on applicable regulations.Dasar pemberian imunitas kepada advokat ada pada Pasal 16 UU No. 18 Tahun 2003, bahwa advokat tidak dapat dituntut baik secara perdata maupun pidana dalam menjalankan tugas profesinya dengan iktikad baik untuk kepentingan pembelaan Klien dalam sidang pengadilan. Imunitas yang didapatkan advokat ternyata tidak hanya dalam lingkup pengadilan, tetapi juga melindunginya diluar pengadilan. Imunitas tersebut telah diperluas berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 26/PUU-XI/2013. Pemberian imunitas kepada advokat tersebut dianggap sebagai suatu perbuatan yang melanggar ketentuan Pasal 28D Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, bahwa setiap orang berhak atas pengakuan, jaminan perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang adil serta perlakuan yang sama dihadapan hukum. Tetapi hak atas kekebalan dari tuntutan hukum (imunitas) kepada advokat tersebut menjadi tidak bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D UUD 1945 apabila diberikan dengan batasan-batasan kepada advokat yang merupakan salah satu penegak hukum di Indonesia, batasan tersebut berlaku baik di luar maupun di dalam sidang pengadilan. Batasan tersebut berupa kode etik profesi dan peraturan perundang-undangan, serta iktikad baik. Setiap tindakan yang melampaui atau diluar ketiga batasan tersebut, tidak bisa dilindungi oleh imunitas, sehingga atas dilampauinya salah satu dari ketiga batasan tersebut maka advokat dapat diproses secara hukum dan dijatuhi hukuman berdasarkan peraturan yang berlaku.

scholarly journals DISKURSUS SOSIOLOGI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 46/PUU-VIII/2010

2021 ◽  
pp. 236-246
Author(s):  
Dwi Sakti Muhamad Huda ◽  
Dodi Alaska Ahmad Syaiful ◽  
Desi Wahyuni
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Reason ◽  
Kinship System ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sociological Discourse ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Broad Scale

The Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 annulled the provisions of Article 43 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law because it contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force. The legal reason behind the rechtfinding is to emphasize that children born outside of marriage have the right to legal protection. This research was conducted with the aim of knowing the impact of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 on one of the judges' judicial duties. This study uses a socio-legal approach with data collection techniques for study documents of literature materials. Based on the results of the analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010, it does not contradict and intersect with the sociological discourse in accordance with the argumentum a contrario method. Then have coherence between the parental or bilateral kinship system with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 in its application in Indonesia. This condition demands the intellectuality of Judges who are required to think on a broad scale and consider other disciplines in their legal findings.

scholarly journals Legal Aid in Indonesia: Problems and Challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-172
Author(s):  
Muhammad Akbar Maulana Gustaf
Keyword(s):  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Poor People ◽  
Legal Services ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

In the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Article 28D Paragraph (1), it is stated that "Everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee, protection and legal certainty that is just and equal treatment before the law." Legal aid is legal services provided by legal aid providers free of charge to legal aid recipients, namely people or groups of poor people to obtain justice. Legal Aid Providers are legal aid organizations or social organizations that provide Legal Aid services based on Law no. 16 of 2011 concerning Legal Aid. With free legal assistance, people who are unable, in this case at the economic level, who are involved in the judicial process will receive relief from obtaining legal advisors so that their rights can be protected and the judicial process can proceed properly.

scholarly journals TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT (TUPE) DALAM PERJANJIAN OUTSOURCING

Media Iuris ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Muhammad Johar Fathoni
Keyword(s):  
Service Provider ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Employment Service ◽  
Labor Agreement ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Transfer of Undertaking Protection of Employment Based on Constitutional Court Decision Number 27/PUU-IX/2011, there are two models that must be fulfilled in outsourcing agreement, that is First, by requiring for agreement between worker and company conducting work outsourcing does not take the form of a certain time labor agreement (PKWT), but is in the form of an indefinite time agreement (PKWTT). The consequences of termination of contract for the Employment Service Provider who laid off his employees for the law, the employer shall be entitled to grant the right to his employees in accordance with the Manpower Act, Kepmenaker No. Kep. 150/Men/2000 on the Settlement of Termination of Employment and Stipulation of Severance, Money of Work and Indemnification. Then the government also stipulates the Decree of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration of the Republic of Indonesia no. Kep. 76/Men/2001 on Amendment to several articles of Minister of Manpower Decree no. Kep. 150 / Men / 2000 on the Settlement of Termination of Employment and Stipulation of Severance, Money of Work and Indemnification at the Company.

scholarly journals Konsekuensi Yuridis Berlakunya Perjanjian Perkawinan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 69/PUU-XIII/2015

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 295
Author(s):  
Si Ngurah Ardhya ◽  
I Putu Windu Mertha Sujana
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Civil Registration ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Justifiable Reason ◽  
Husband And Wife

Philosophically PMK (Constitutional Court Decision) Nr. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 based on way of life, awareness, and legal ideals such as the mystical atmosphere and Indonesian Nation according Pancasila and The Constitutional of The Republic of Indonesia Article 28E Paragraph (2). Sociologically, based on legal needs society regarding the leniency when the marriage agreement was made that is the phenomenon of a husband and wife for some reason feels they needed to make a marriage agreement after the wedding day was held. Juridically, the issuance of PMK Nr. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 is not solely on the basis of unconstitutionality, but also on a conflict of norms between Article 29 Paragraph (1) of Act Nr.  Year 1974 with general provisions of the ageement in Book III Code of Civil Law. Referring to PMK No.69/PUU-XIII/2015 which was strengthened by Act Nr. 2 Year 2014, Notary has the right to ratified the marriage agreement into an authentic deed so that there is no justifiable reason for the Department of Population and Civil Registration and Office of Religious Affairs rejects the authentic nature of the deed which is validated bay notary. 

scholarly journals Pelaksanaan Klausul Penyelesaian Sengketa Dalam Akad Perbankan Syariah Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor : 93/PUU-X/2012 Pada Bank Syariah Mandiri KCP Indramayu

Jurnal Akta ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Mahpudin Mahpudin ◽  
Akhmad Khisni
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism

ABSTRAKPutusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor : 93/PUU-X/2012 Tanggal 29 Agustus 2013 telah membatalkan Penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah adalah soal kepastian hukum. Hal ini dikarenakan dalam Penjelasan pasal 55 ayat (2) menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum antara pilihan hukum dalam lingkup peradilan umum dengan pilihan hukum dalam lingkup peradilan agama. Kepastian hukum secara normatif adalah ketika suatu peraturan dibuat dan diundangkan secara pasti karena dapat memberikan pengaturan secara jelas dan logis. Jelas dalam arti tidak menimbulkan keragu-raguan atau multi tafsir, dan logis dalam arti hukum tersebut menjadi suatu sistem norma dengan norma lain sehingga tidak berbenturan atau menimbulkan konflik norma ataupun adanya kekaburan dan kekosongan norma. Asas ini dapat dipergunakan untuk dapat mengatasi persoalan dalam hal konsep mekanisme dan pilihan hukum dalam penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah;Pilihan forum penyelesaian sengketa Perbankan Syariah berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor : 93/PUU-X/2012 Tanggal 29 Agustus 2013 yang membatalkan Penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah harus dinyatakan secara tegas menyatakan dan menyepakati apakah memilih forum Arbitrase Syariah atau menentukan pilihan forum Pengadilan Agama dalam rumusan klausula Penyelesaian Perselisihan atau Sengketa dalam Akad Perbankan Syariahnya. Artinya memilih atau menentukan salah satu forum mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa syariah yaitu forum BASYARNAS atau Pengadilan Agama, bukan menggabungkan keduanya dalam satu rangkaian rumusan klausula penyelesaian sengketa.Kata kunci : klausul penyelesaian sengketa, akad perbankan syariah, putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi ABSTRACTDecision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 93 / PUU-X / 2012 dated August 29, 2013 has annulled the Elucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 21 Year 2008 concerning Sharia Banking is a matter of legal certainty. This is because in the Elucidation of article 55 paragraph (2) raises legal uncertainty between the choice of law within the scope of general justice with the choice of law within the scope of religious court. Normative legal certainty is when a rule is created and enacted as it can provide clear and logical arrangements. Clearly in the sense that there is no doubt or multi-interpretation, and logical in the sense that the law becomes a system of norms with other norms so as not to clash or cause conflict of norms or the existence of vagueness and void norms. This principle can be used to solve the problem in terms of the concept of mechanism and choice of law in solving the dispute of sharia banking;The choice of dispute resolution forum of Sharia Banking pursuant to Decision of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 93 / PUU-X / 2012 dated August 29, 2013 which annul the Elucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law of Republic of Indonesia Number 21 Year 2008 concerning Sharia Banking must be stated expressly declare and agree on whether to vote for a Shari'ah Arbitration Forum or to determine the choice of Religious Court forums in the formulation of a Clause or Dispute Settlement clause in its Sharia Banking Agreement. It means choosing or determining one of the forums of dispute resolution mechanism of sharia namely BASYARNAS or Religious Court, not merging the two in a series of dispute settlement clause formulas.Keywords: clause of dispute settlement, syariah banking contract, Constitutional Court decision

scholarly journals ANALISIS UPAYA HUKUM KASASI OLEH JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM TERHADAP PUTUSAN BEBAS

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
Munarty Munarty ◽  
Marwan Mas ◽  
Ruslan Renggong
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Republic

Secara teori, Jaksa Penuntut Umum (JPU) tidak diperkenankan mengajukan upaya hukum kasasi terhadap vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP. Namun dalam praktek selama ini, Jaksa Penuntut Umum telah beberapa kali mengajukan kasasi terhadap putusan bebas dan beberapa di antaranya di kabulkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Hal ini terjadi karena larangan mengajukan kasasi atas vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP terkesan multitafsir sehingga menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat dalam penerapannya. Kondisi semacam ini sangat berseberangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Negara Hukum, khususnya dalam Upaya mewujudkan kepastian hukum. Atas dasar itulah, Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui putusannya dengan nomor 114/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa Frasa “kecuali terhadap putusan bebas” sebagaimana tercantum dalam Pasal 244 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) adalah bertentangan dengan UUD Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945. Menurut pertimbangan hukum Mahkamah Konstitusi, larangan mengajukan kasasi atau Putusan Bebas oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak memberikan upaya hukum biasa terhadap putusan bebas serta menghilangkan fungsi Mahkamah Agung sebagai Pengadilan Kasasi terhadap Putusan Bebas, sehingga tidak tercapai kepastian hukum yang adil dan prinsip perlakukan yang sama di hadapan hukum. In theory, public prosecutors (JPU) are not allowed to file a cassation against the acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in practice so far, Public Prosecutors have several times filed an appeal against the acquittal decisions and some of them have been granted by the Supreme Court. This occurs because the prohibition on filing an appeal for an acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code has multiple interpretations, which creates different opinions in its application. This kind of condition is very contrary to the principles of rule of law, especially in the effort to create legal certainty. On that basis, the Constitutional Court through its decision number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 stated that the phrase "except for free decisions" as contained in Article 244 of Law Number 8 Year 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law (KUHAP) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. According to the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court, the prohibition against filing an appeal or Free Decision by Public Prosecutors does not provide ordinary remedies against free decisions and eliminates the function of the Supreme Court as a Cassation Court against Free Decisions, so that fair legal certainty is not achieved and the principle of equal treatment in the law.

scholarly journals The Crime Of Damage After the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 76/PUU-XV/2017

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Kadir Jaelani ◽  
Resti Dian Luthviati
Keyword(s):  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Electronic Transactions ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
The Republic

From 2009 until now, there have been 30 cases tried by the Court with the use of Article 27 paragraph (3) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. These various cases have raised opinions from some people who consider defamation offenses contrary to the spirit of reform that upholds freedom of thought and expression. Crime of reputation after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 50/PUU-VI/2008, Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-VII/2009, Constitutional Court Decision Number 5/PUU-VIII/2010, Constitutional Court Decision Number 31/PUU-XIII/ 2015, and the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 76/PUU-XV/2017 concerning the Review of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 regarding Information and Electronic Transactions against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia are regulated in detail with one of the points, namely making changes in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law and reducing criminal threats in 2 (two) provisions. Keywords: Reputation Offenses; Legal Certainty; Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Hukum Pencemaran Nama Baik Terhadap Pejabat Negara: Kajian atas Putusan Hakim Nomor 341/Pid.B/2014/PN.SGM

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
Orin Gusta Andini
Keyword(s):  
Legal History ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Electronic Transactions ◽  
The Republic

 AbstrakSejak 2009 hingga saat ini terdapat 30 kasus yang diadili oleh Pengadilan Negeri di Indonesia dengan menggunakan Pasal 27 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Berbagai kasus tersebut memunculkan opini dari sebagian masyarakat yang menganggap pasal-pasal delik pencemaran nama baik bertentangan dengan semangat reformasi yang menjunjung kebebasan berpendapat dan berekspresi. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Tulisan ini berkesimpulan bahwa tindak pidana reputasi pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 50/PUU-VI/2008, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2/PUU-VII/2009, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 5/PUU-VIII/2010,  Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 31/PUU-XIII/2015 dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 76/PUU-XV/2017 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 diatur secara terperinci dengan salah satu pointnya yaitu melakukan perubahan dalam Pasal 27 ayat (3) UU ITE dan menurunkan ancaman pidana pada 2 (dua) ketentuan.Kata Kunci: Delik Reputasi, Kepastian Hukum dan Mahkamah Konstitusi.Abstract  Since 2009 until now there have been 30 cases tried by the District Courts in Indonesia using Article 27 paragraph (3) of Law Number 19 Year 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 Year 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. These various cases gave rise to opinions from some people who considered the articles of defamation offenses contrary to the spirit of reform which upheld the freedom of opinion and expression. This type of research is normative legal research. Normative legal research prioritizes library research with a focus on studies of legal principles, legal systematics, legal synchronization and legal history, this research is also descriptive. This study concluded that the crime of reputation after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 50 / PUU-VI / 2008, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 2 / PUU-VII / 2009, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 5 / PUU-VIII / 2010, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 31 / PUU-XIII / 2015 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 76 / PUU-XV / 2017 concerning Testing of Law Number 19 Year 2016 concerning Amendment to Law Number 11 Year 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 is regulated in detail with one of the points, namely making changes in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law and reducing criminal threats in 2 (two) provisions.Keywords: Reputation Delik, Legal Certainty and the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Outer Children Marriages Status After Constitutional Court Decision No: 46/PUU-VII/2010

Rechtsidee ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sri Budi Purwaningsih
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Illegitimate Children ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No.46/PUU-VIII / 2010 dated 17 February 2012, granted the judicial review of Article 43 (1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage by deciding that the article should read "Children who are born outside of marriage just had a civil relationship with her mother and her mother's family as well as with men as a father who can be proved based on science and technology and / or evidence, has blood ties according to law, including a civil relationship with his father's family". This Indonesian Constitutional Court's decision bring Juridical consequence that illegitimate children not only have a legal relationship with her mother, but also has a legal relationship with the father (biological) and his father's family, as long as it is proven with science and technology. The Constitutional Court's decision is a starting point in the legal protection of illegitimate children, namely the "right alignment" between the illegitimate child with the legitimate son. Illegitimate children have the rights to demand their civil rights toward their father (biological) as the same rights obtained by the legitimate son. How To Cite: Purwaningsih, S. (2016). Outer Children Marriages Status After Constitutional Court Decision No: 46/PUU-VII/2010. Rechtsidee, 1(1), 119-130. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v1i1.99

scholarly journals HAK ANGKET DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT REPUBLIK INDONESIA (DPR RI) TERHADAP KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI (KPK)

Asy-Syari ah ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-202
Author(s):  
Dasep Muhammad Firdaus
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Institutional Authority ◽  
Balance Principle ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

AbstractIndonesia as a constitutional and democratic state has three governmental branches which are executive, legislative and judicial power; and executed on the check and balance principle. One of the check and balance principles implementation can be seen in the House of Representatives of Indonesia (DPR)’s Parliamentary Scrutiny function which is mandated by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945), the right of inquiry to investigate all forms of implementation of laws and government policies that are allegedly contrary to the legislation. Recently the rights had been applied to evaluate KPK (corruption eradication commission) as an independent institution and free from any authority. Substantially the inquiry right was applied to evaluate KPK regarding the following aspects: institutional, authority, human resources, and expenditure budgets. Through legal tracing on related laws and regulations, that were descriptively analyzed regarding the DPR's inquiry right implementation towards KPK; it was found the DPR's inquiry rights to the KPK is constitutionally regulated in Article 20A of the UUD 1945, Law Number 17 of 2014 Article 79 paragraph (1), (2) and (3) and Constitutional Court Decision Case No. 36 and 37 / PUU-XV / 2017. Based on those regulations, DPR has rights to ask for KPK’s accountability upon their duties and authority and KPK is obliged to respect and implement DPR recommendations produced from the inquiry rights.Keywords:People’s Representative Council, Rights of Inquiry, Corruption Eradication Commission AbstrakIndonesia sebagai negara demokrasi kontitusional terdiri dari cabang kekuasaan eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif berdasar prinsip check and balance. Wujud prinsip tersebut ada dalam ketatanegaraan Indonesia terlihat pada fungsi pengawasan DPR RI yang diamanatkan oleh UUD NRI Tahun 1945, antara lain melalui hak angket untuk menyelidiki segala bentuk pelaksanaan UU maupun kebijakan pemerintah yang diduga bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Salah satunya adalah hak angket yang ditujukan terhadap KPK sebagai lembaga bersifat independen dan bebas dari kekuasaan manapun. Secara subtantif pelaksanaan hak dilakukan untuk mengevaluasi KPK dari sisi kelembagan, kewenangan, sumber daya manusia hingga anggaran belanja. Melalui penelusuran peraturan perundang-undangan yang dianalisis secara deskriptif atas hak angket DPR terhadap KPK; ditemukan bahwa landasan hukum hak angket DPR terhadap KPK secara konstitusional diatur di dalam Pasal 20A UUD NKRI Tahun 1945, Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2014 Pasal 79 ayat (1), (2) dan (3) dan Putusan MK No. Perkara 36 dan 37/PUU-XV/2017 . Atas dasar ketentuan tersebut, DPR berhak meminta pertanggungjawaban pelaksanaan tugas dan kewenangan KPK dan KPK sebagai lembaga penegak hukum harus menghormati dan melaksanakan rekomendasi yang telah dihasilkan pansus angket dan.Kata Kunci:DPR, Hak Angket, KPK

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document