Discretion of Government Officials in the Perspective of Corruption Crime Reviewed from the Theory of Criminal Removal Reason

Altje Agustin Musa; Jemmy Sondakh; Wempie Jh. Kumendong; Caecilia J.J. Waha

doi:10.32535/jcda.v5i1.1389

Discretion of Government Officials in the Perspective of Corruption Crime Reviewed from the Theory of Criminal Removal Reason

Altje Agustin Musa, Jemmy Sondakh, Wempie Jh. Kumendong, Caecilia J.J. Waha

Abstract

Providing welfare for all citizens is the goal of the Indonesian state. In government administration, government officials are often faced with concrete social situations urgently to be addressed, while regulations are unclear. To overcome government stagnation, government officials are given the authority to act based on their own considerations, called discretion. The study aims to analyze the discretionary case and find the relationship between discretion in the perspective of corruption and the theory of criminal removal reason. The study finds that Criminal Code regulates Criminal Removal Reasons concerning defending to save on body, soul, or goods of someone/others, not government officials discretion to defend social interest. The Corruption Law does not regulate Criminal Removal Reason. In judicial corruption in Indonesia, Government officials' discretion was not sentenced because the decision/act is based on considerations of urgency, for the public interest, and does not benefit the government officials/others.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Atmosudirjo, P. S. (1994). State administrative law. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.

Arief, B. N. (1996). Anthology of criminal law policy. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Fletcher, G. P. (2000). Rethinking criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ferry, H. (2014). Loss of state finances. Yogyakarta: Thafa Media.

Hamdan, M. (2012). Alasan penghapus pidana-Teori dan studi kasus. Bandung: PT. Refika Aditama.

iky_ndx. (2010). Fungsi diskresi dalam pelaksanaan pelayanan oleh pihak pemerintah. Retrieved from http://ikyndx.blogspot.co.id/2010/11/fungsi-diskresi-dalam-pelaksanaan.html

Indonesian Judicial Monitoring Society FHUI. (2015). Results of monitoring of the prosecutor's office for the 2003-2004 Period. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/mappifh/hasil-pemantauan-kejaksaan-periode-20032004

Koentjoro, D. H. (2004). State administrative law. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia,.

Marbun S.F. (2008). (R)UU administrasi pemerintahan sebagai ujung tombak negara hukum demokratis (Telaah dari optik hukum administrasi), dalam menggagas undang-undang, administrasi pemerintahan, sepuluh karya tulis terbaik lomba jurnalistik dan karya tulis para ahli (Jakarta). Jakarta: Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI).

Media Indonesia. (2009). Special committee promises to investigate century case until completely. Retrieved from www.mediaindonesia.com/read/2009/12/20/112513/16/1/Pansus-Janji-Usut-Kasus-Century-Hingga-Tuntas

Moejatno. (1987). Asas-asas hukum pidana. Jakarta: Bina Aksara.

Panjaitan, S. P. (2001). Makna dan peranan Freies Ermessen dalam hukum administrasi negara. Unisia, 0(10), 53-60.

Sadjijono. (2008). Understanding some main chapters administrative law. Yogyakarta: Laksbang Pressindo.

Sudarto. (1990). Criminal Law I. Semarang: Sudarto Foundation,.

Syamsudin, A., Ilyas, N., & Badeona, Y. B. (Eds.). (2004). Putusan perkara Akbar Tanjung-Analisis yuridis para ahli hukum. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32535/jcda.v5i1.1389