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

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25041/corruptio.v2i1.2246

Abstract

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.

Keywords:

Elements, Testings, Distortion, Abue, Corruption

References

Arsyad, Jawade Hafidz. Korupsi dalam Perspektif HAN (Hukum Administrasi Negara). Jakarta: Sinar Grafika. 2015

Basah, Sjahran. Eksistensi dan Tolak Ukur Badan Peradilan Administrasi di Indoneisa. Bandung: Alumni. 2014.

Dillon, HS. Melawan Korupsi Dari Aceh sampai Papua (10 Kisah Pemberantasan Korupsidi Indonesia). Jakarta: PT. Penebar Swadaya. 2006.

Hadjon, Philippus M. Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia cetakan kesembilanbelas. Yogjakarta: Grafika. 2019.

Latif, Abdul. Hukum Administrasi dalam Praktik Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jakarta: Prenada Media Grup. 2014.

ND, Mukti Fajar. Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Empiris. Yogjakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. 2010.

Umar, Haryono. Corruption the Devil. Jakarta: Universitas Trisakti. 2017.

Yasin, Muhammad, and et.al. Anotasi UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Jakarta: Center for Study of Governance and Administrative Reform. 2017.

Ansori, Lutfil. “DISKRESI DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PEMERINTAH DALAM PENYELENGGARAAN PEMERINTAHAN.” Jurnal Yuridis. Vol. 2, August 25, 2015. https://doi.org/10.35586/.V2I1.165.

Asyikin, Nehru. “Pengawasan Publik Terhadap Pejabat Publik Yang Melakukan Tindakan Korupsi: Perspektif Hukum Administrasi.” Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika 4, no. 1 (March 31, 2020): 80. https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v4i1.316.

Fransiska Adelina Sinaga. “BENTUK-BENTUK KORUPSI POLITIK .” Legislasi Indonesia 16, no. 01 (2019). https://e-jurnal.peraturan.go.id/index.php/jli/article/view/256.

Guslan, Odie Faiz. “TINJAUAN YURIDIS MENGENAI BATASAN ANTARA PERBUATAN MALADMINISTRASI DENGAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI.” JCH (Jurnal Cendekia Hukum) 4, no. 1 (September 28, 2018): 9. https://doi.org/10.33760/jch.v4i1.38.

Kumalaningdyah, Nur. “Pertentangan Antara Diskresi Kebijakan Dengan Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2019): 481. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol26.iss3.art3.

Manao, Disiplin F. “Penyelesaian Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Oleh Aparatur Pemerintah Dari Segi Hukum Administrasi Dihubungkan Dengan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika. Vol. 2, March 31, 2018. http://www.sthb.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/jwy/article/view/158.

Muttalib, Abdul. “EFEKTIVITAS PENEGAKAN HUKUM TERHADAP PENYIDKAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI OLEH KEPOLISIAN DAERAH SULAWESI SELATAN.” Al Hikam 1, no. 1 (2017). https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/287963-efektivitas-penegakan-hukum-terhadap-pen-0d0052ba.pdf.

Panjaitan, Marojahan. “PENYELESAIAN PENYALAHGUNAAN WEWENANG YANG MENIMBULKAN KERUGIAN NEGARA MENURUT HUKUM ADMINISTRASI PEMERINTAHAN.” Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM 24, no. 3 (July 2017): 431–47. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol24.iss3.art5.

Putrijanti, Aju, and Lapon Tukan Leonard. “Kompetensi Peratun Untuk Memeriksa Unsur Penyalahgunaan Wewenang.” Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum Dan Keadilan 7, no. 1 (April 23, 2019): 107–27. https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v7i1.605.

Sahlan, Muhammad. “Unsur Menyalahgunakan Kewenangan Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Sebagai Kompetensi Absolut Peradilan Administrasi.” Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM 23, no. 2 (April 17, 2016): 271–93. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol23.iss2.art6.

Satriya Nugraha. “KONSEP PENYALAHGUNAAN WEWENANG DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DI INDONESIA.” Sociosciientia 8, no. 1 (March 2016): 15–22. https://lldikti11.ristekdikti.go.id/jurnal/pdf/d3246e7b-3092-11e8-9030-54271eb90d3b/.

Setiadi Wicipto. “Korupsi Di Indonesia Penyebab, Hambatan, Solusi Dan Regulasi.” Legislasi Indonesia 15, no. 3 (2018). https://e-jurnal.peraturan.go.id/index.php/jli/article/view/234.

Simanjuntak, Enrico Parulian. “PENGUJIAN ADA TIDAKNYA PENYALAHGUNAAN WEWENANG MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG ADMINISTRASI PEMERINTAHAN / EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION LAW.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 7, no. 2 (July 29, 2018): 237. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.7.2.2018.237-262.

Wibowo, Ari. “PENENTUAN KRITERIA UNSUR PENYALAHGUNAAN WEWENANG DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN).” Yuridis 7, no. 1 (2020): 120–48. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/327205589.pdf.

Yedi Purwanto, and Ridwan Fauzy. “ANALISIS TERHADAP HUKUM ISLAM DAN HUKUM POSITIF DALAM PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI DI INDONESIA” 15, no. 2 (2017): 127–40. http://jurnal.upi.edu/file/05_Analisis_Terhadap_Hukum_Islam_-_Yedi_P1.pdf.

Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts

Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes

Law Number 13 Year 2003 Concerning State Finances

Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (GA Law)

Government Regulation Number 4 of 2015 concerning Guidelines for Procedures in the Assessment of Elements of Abuse of Authority (BN Number 1267 of 2015), Article 3.

Decision of the State Administrative Court Number 250/P/PW/2015/PTUN-JKT

Decision of the State Administrative Court Number 257/P/PW/2015/PTUN-JKT

Decision of the State Administrative Court Number 15/P/PW/2016/PTUN.PLK

Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 93/Pid.Sus/TPK/2015/PN.Jkt.Pst

Decision of the High Court of the Special District of Jakarta Nomor 25/PID/TPK/2016/PT.DKI

Decision of the Supreme Court Number 302 PK/Pid.Sus/2018

Decision of the Palangka Raya District Court Number 40/Pid.Sus-TPK/2016/PN.Plk.

Decision of the High Court of Palangka Raya Number 1/Pid.Sus-TPK/2016/PT.Plk.

Decision of the Supreme Court 1055/K/Pid.Sus/2017. 9

Justicia Law Firm. 29 April. Accessed 28 January 2021. http://justitialawfirm.or.id/2017/04/29/menyalahgunakan-kewenangan-dalam-tindak-pidana-korupsi-dan-penyalahgunaan-wewenang-pada-hukum-administrasi/ Justicia Law Firm.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Total Abstract Views: 0 | Total Downloads: 1

Downloads

Authors

  • Putri Nurmala Sari Siahaan Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

Published

2021-05-03

Issue

Section

Articles