KONSTITUSIONALITAS PEMBERHENTIAN SEMENTARA PEJABAT PUBLIK YANG DIDUGA ATAU DIDAKWA MELAKUKAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Dinoroy Marganda Aritonang

Abstract

The problem of temporary dismissal of public officials frequently emerges along with the problem of corruption eradication. Some public officials who do not agree with the temporary dismissal procedures usually request a petition or
judicial review process to Constitutional Court (MK) related to laws regulating about his/her public position. The procedures of temporary dismissal for public officials are stipulated in one or more laws regulating the function and role of
a public institution where the public officials were used to work before. There are some terms and mechanisms within the related laws. But the point, the main reason why such public officials are dismissed temporarily from office is caused by a criminal accusation against the public official. Temporary dismissal left us with some very crucial questions, one of them is about the particular period of the dismissal that has to be obeyed by the public officials. The related law only provides an answer in a normative way. It is stated that the public official shall be released or appointed again when the court confirms that he/she is not guilty at all, then his/her power and name will be rehabilitated. This kind of uncertainty of the length on the dismissal period which is why usually considered to be a legal basis in order to propose a judicial review to MK, because the requester perceives that his/her loss can be categorized as aconstitutional loss. Besides, he/she would be thinking that the dismissal can be also considered as a violation to presumption of innocent principle. Another main problem is could it be right if the litigant considered that the temporary dismissal is a constitutional issue and then sending it to MK to be reviewed constitutionally. According to several MK's decision about these cases, MK has affirmed that the temporary dismissal is not a constitutional issue and can not be accepted as a constitutional loss. The exact place to argue that issue is DPR through legislative review. This research itself uses three type of approaches those are statute approach, comparative approach, and case approach.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Aritonang, D. M. (2019). KONSTITUSIONALITAS PEMBERHENTIAN SEMENTARA PEJABAT PUBLIK YANG DIDUGA ATAU DIDAKWA MELAKUKAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi: Media Pengembangan Ilmu Dan Praktek Administrasi, 9(1), 05. https://doi.org/10.31113/jia.v9i1.255


Section
Articles

References

Asshiddiqie, Jimly. 1997. Teori dan Aliran Penafsiran

Hukum Tata Negara. Jakarta: Ind Hill co.

Azhari, Aidul Fitriaciada. 2005. Penafsiran Konstitusi

dan Implikasinya Terhadap Pembentukan Sistem

Ketatanegaraan Demokrasi atau Otokrasi (Studi

tentang penafsiran UUD 1945 dan Pergulatan

Mewujudkan Demokrasi di Indonesia. Disertasi.

Jakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

Azhary. 1995. Negara Hukum Indonesia: Analisis Yuridis

Normatif tentang Unsur-unsurnya. Jakarta: UI

Press.

Budiardjo, Miriam. 2009. Dasar-dasar Ilmu Politik.

Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Fuady, Munir. 2010. Teori Negara Hukum Modern

(Rechtstaat). Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Funk, William F. and Richard H. Seamon. 2009.

Adminisrative Law: Explanations & Examples. New

York: Aspen Publishers.

Garner, Bryan A. 1999. Black's Law Dictionaryâ€. 7th

Edition. USA: West Group.

Klitgaard, Robert. 2001. Membasmi Korupsi. Jakarta:

Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Kumorotomo, Wahyudi. 2007. Etika Administrasi

Negara. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Manan, Bagir. 2004. Hukum Positif Indonesia (Suatu

Kajian Teoritik). Yogyakarta: FH UII Press.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2005. Penelitian Hukum.,

Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.

Mertokusumo, Sudikno. 2006. Penemuan Hukum

(Sebuah Pengantar). Cet. Keenam. Yogyakarta:

Liberty.

Muladi. 2005. Hak Asasi Manusia: Hakekat, Konsep, dan

Implikasinya. Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Nasucha, Chaizi. 2004. Reformasi Administrasi Publik:

Teori dan Praktik. Jakarta: Gramedia Widiasarana

Indonesia.

National Conference State Legislatures. 2011. Ethics:

Statutory Definitions of Public Official / Public

O f f i c e r . h t t p : / / w w w . n c s l . o r g /

default.aspx?tabid=15324

OECD. 2011. Covention on Combanting Bribery of Foreign

Public Offcials in International Bussiness

Transaction. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/

/18/38028044.pdf.

Purnomo, Bambang. 1983. Potensi Kejahatan Korupsi

di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Bina Aksara.

Putusan MK No. 024/PUU-III/2005

Ramraj, Victor V. 2004. Four Model of Due Process.

International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol.

(3): p492-524.

Thoha, Miftah. 2010. Jabatan Politik dalam Pemerintahan,

Jakarta: Harian Kompas.

Thontowi, Jawahir. 2008. Prospek Pemberantasan

Korupsi: Perimbangan Kewenangan KPK dengan

I n s t i t u s i P e n e g a k H u k u m .

http://journal.uii.ac.id/index.php/Unisia/arti

cle/view/168

Tim Peneliti Mahkamah Konstitusi. 2010. Mekanisme

Impeachment dan Hukum Acara Konstitusi. Jakarta:

Sekretariat Jenderal MK.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2009.

Technical Guide to United Nations Convention

Against Corruption. http://www.unodc.org/

documents/corruption/Technical_Guide_UNC

AC.pdf.

Undang-undang No. 16 Tahun 2004 tentang

Kejaksaan

Undang-undang No. 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi

Yudisial

Undang-undang No. 39 Tahun 2008 tentang

Kementerian Negara