Perbedaan Pandangan Ajaran Sifat Melawan Hukum Materiil Tindak Pidana Korupsi

Main Authors: Wibowo, Seno, Nurhayati, Ratna
Format: Article info application/pdf Journal
Language: ind
Published: Faculty of Law, Padjadjaran University , 2015
Subjects:
Online Access: http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7331
http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7331/3372
ctrlnum article-7331
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?> <dc schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><title lang="id-ID">Perbedaan Pandangan Ajaran Sifat Melawan Hukum Materiil Tindak Pidana Korupsi</title><creator>Wibowo, Seno</creator><creator>Nurhayati, Ratna</creator><subject lang="id-ID">ajaran sifat melawan hukum materiil; judicial review; Mahkamah Agung; Mahkamah Konstitusi; negative legislation</subject><description lang="id-ID">Penerapan ajaran sifat melawan hukum materiil dalam fungsi positif dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (UU Tipikor 2001) oleh Mahkamah Agung pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi telah bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Pasal 28 ayat (1) huruf D dan asas legalitas serta asas pemisahan kekuasaan negara. Selain itu, hal tersebut juga dinilai tidak mengindahkan sudut hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, sehingga tidak mencerminkan kepastian hukum. Mahkamah Agung tidak berwenang menerapkan kembali ajaran sifat melawan hukum dalam fungsi positif yang terdapat dalam UU Tipikor 2001 dikarenakan dengan hal tersebut dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Putusan judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak hanya mengikat para pihak yang berperkara namun juga rakyat dan lembaga tinggi negara termasuk Mahkamah Agung. Mahkamah Agung harus melaksanakan dan mematuhi putusan judicial review tersebut mengingat kedudukan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai negative legislation. Apabila instansi penegak hukum maupun aparaturnya menggunakan suatu instrumen hukum yang telah dinyatakan tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat secara hukum, maka akibat hukum yang terjadi dapat berupa kerugian finansial. Instansi penegak hukum atau aparaturnya dapat menanggung akibat hukum secara pribadi (personal liability) untuk mengganti kerugian yang dituntut melalui peradilan biasa yang ditegakkan secara paksa dan demi hukum batal sejak semula (ab initio).&#xA0;Differences in Point of Views on the Nature of Unlawful Material Doctrine of CorruptionAbstractThe application of the unlawful materiel doctrine in a positive function in Law Number 20 in2001 on The Amendment of Law Number 31 in 1999 on Corruption Eradication (UU Tipikor 2001) by the Supreme Court after the decision of the Constitutional Courtis contrary to the Constitution of 1945 Article 28 D paragraph 1 and the principle of legality and the principle of separation of state powers. The application does not heed the hierarchy of legislation in Indonesia, and thus does not reflect any legal certainty. The Supreme Court has no authority to re-implement the unlawful materiel doctrine in the positive functions contained in the law of corruption in this case, because it is adjudged in the judicial review by Constitutional Court which has no binding force. The decision by the Constitutional Court for a judicial review binds the litigants as well as the citizen and state officials. The Supreme Court should also implement and abide by the decision of the judicial review with consideration that the Constitutional Court's decision is a negative legislation. If a law enforcement agency or apparatus uses a legal instrument which has been declared having no legal binding, legal consequences are to occur in the form of financial losses to the extent that the state officials shall be liabileto give compensation, which,through the regular court, can be enforced by force and by the void from the beginning law (ad initio).Keywords: unlawful materiel doctrine, Supreme Court, Supreme Constitutional Court, judicial review, negative legislation.&#xA0;DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v2n2.a8</description><publisher lang="id-ID">Faculty of Law, Padjadjaran University</publisher><contributor lang="id-ID"/><date>2015-07-27</date><type>Journal:Article</type><type>Other:info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</type><type>Other:</type><type>File:application/pdf</type><identifier>http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7331</identifier><source lang="id-ID">PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law); Vol 2, No 2 (2015): PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law)</source><source>2442-9325</source><source>2460-1543</source><language>ind</language><relation>http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7331/3372</relation><rights lang="id-ID">Copyright (c) 2015 Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum</rights><rights lang="id-ID">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</rights><recordID>article-7331</recordID></dc>
language ind
format Journal:Article
Journal
Other:info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Other
Other:
File:application/pdf
File
Journal:Journal
author Wibowo, Seno
Nurhayati, Ratna
title Perbedaan Pandangan Ajaran Sifat Melawan Hukum Materiil Tindak Pidana Korupsi
publisher Faculty of Law, Padjadjaran University
publishDate 2015
topic ajaran sifat melawan hukum materiil
judicial review
Mahkamah Agung
Mahkamah Konstitusi
negative legislation
url http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7331
http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7331/3372
contents Penerapan ajaran sifat melawan hukum materiil dalam fungsi positif dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (UU Tipikor 2001) oleh Mahkamah Agung pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi telah bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Pasal 28 ayat (1) huruf D dan asas legalitas serta asas pemisahan kekuasaan negara. Selain itu, hal tersebut juga dinilai tidak mengindahkan sudut hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, sehingga tidak mencerminkan kepastian hukum. Mahkamah Agung tidak berwenang menerapkan kembali ajaran sifat melawan hukum dalam fungsi positif yang terdapat dalam UU Tipikor 2001 dikarenakan dengan hal tersebut dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Putusan judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak hanya mengikat para pihak yang berperkara namun juga rakyat dan lembaga tinggi negara termasuk Mahkamah Agung. Mahkamah Agung harus melaksanakan dan mematuhi putusan judicial review tersebut mengingat kedudukan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai negative legislation. Apabila instansi penegak hukum maupun aparaturnya menggunakan suatu instrumen hukum yang telah dinyatakan tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat secara hukum, maka akibat hukum yang terjadi dapat berupa kerugian finansial. Instansi penegak hukum atau aparaturnya dapat menanggung akibat hukum secara pribadi (personal liability) untuk mengganti kerugian yang dituntut melalui peradilan biasa yang ditegakkan secara paksa dan demi hukum batal sejak semula (ab initio). Differences in Point of Views on the Nature of Unlawful Material Doctrine of CorruptionAbstractThe application of the unlawful materiel doctrine in a positive function in Law Number 20 in2001 on The Amendment of Law Number 31 in 1999 on Corruption Eradication (UU Tipikor 2001) by the Supreme Court after the decision of the Constitutional Courtis contrary to the Constitution of 1945 Article 28 D paragraph 1 and the principle of legality and the principle of separation of state powers. The application does not heed the hierarchy of legislation in Indonesia, and thus does not reflect any legal certainty. The Supreme Court has no authority to re-implement the unlawful materiel doctrine in the positive functions contained in the law of corruption in this case, because it is adjudged in the judicial review by Constitutional Court which has no binding force. The decision by the Constitutional Court for a judicial review binds the litigants as well as the citizen and state officials. The Supreme Court should also implement and abide by the decision of the judicial review with consideration that the Constitutional Court's decision is a negative legislation. If a law enforcement agency or apparatus uses a legal instrument which has been declared having no legal binding, legal consequences are to occur in the form of financial losses to the extent that the state officials shall be liabileto give compensation, which,through the regular court, can be enforced by force and by the void from the beginning law (ad initio).Keywords: unlawful materiel doctrine, Supreme Court, Supreme Constitutional Court, judicial review, negative legislation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v2n2.a8
software_str ojs
id IOS42.article-7331
institution Universitas Padjadjaran
institution_id 454
institution_type library:university
library
library Fakultas Hukum
library_id 2
collection PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law)
repository_id 42
subject_area Hukum
city BANDUNG
province JAWA BARAT
repoId IOS42
first_indexed 2017-01-27T03:16:28Z
last_indexed 2018-03-05T02:36:21Z
recordtype dc
_version_ 1594063464777646080
score 12.0878725