Equation of the Subject of Norms

Oct 13, 2025 by pynkocean.com 46 views

Juridical Analysis of Misuse of Authority in the Criminal Justice Process of Corruption

Introduction

The Indonesian legal system is currently navigating a complex "gray area" between administrative law and criminal law, sparking intense debate among legal experts. This ambiguity arises from the decisions made by state officials, which can be used to justify or reject criminal acts. However, discretion not grounded in statutory regulations has the potential to lead to abuse of authority. In this article, we will delve into the juridical analysis of the application for the presence or absence of abuse of authority based on Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration of Corruption Criminal Justice Process.

The Role of Administrative Law in Handling Corruption

Administrative law plays a crucial role in preventing and repressing corruption in Indonesia. From a repressive perspective, administrative law takes center stage, considering that most corruption cases occur in the context of state losses. Article 20 and Article 21 of Law No. 30 of 2014 provide a framework for the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP) to conduct supervision and prevent abuse of authority. Additionally, the State Administrative Court (PTUN) has the authority to examine and decide on the absence of elements of abuse of authority. This aligns with the role of the Corruption Court, which can test the element of abuse of authority in Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Act (PTPK).

The Implications of Authority in the Judicial Process

The relationship between administrative law and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority has significant implications for the contact of authority in the judicial process. The research method employed in this analysis is normative legal research, which involves a study of relevant laws and legal materials, as well as the collection of related information. Data was collected through literature studies, and analysis was carried out qualitatively.

Similarities between Administrative Law and Criminal Law

The results of this analysis revealed a similarity between administrative law and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority. Some of these similarities include:

Equation of Use of Terms: Both administrative law and criminal law use similar terms to describe the abuse of authority.
Equation of Understanding: The understanding of abuse of authority is similar in both administrative law and criminal law.
Equation of the Subject of Norms: The subject of norms, namely government officials, is the same in both administrative law and criminal law.
Equations related to Forbidden Acts (Verbod): The forbidden acts (verbod) are similar in both administrative law and criminal law.

Pros and Cons among Legal Experts

The close relationship between administrative law and criminal law raises pros and cons among legal experts. The question is whether the results of the APIP examination or PTUN decision stating that there is no element of abuse of authority carried out by government officials can bind the criminal justice process. Some experts argue that abuse of authority must be completed first through PTUN before proceeding to the Corruption Court. However, there are also different opinions that government officials can be sentenced to criminal acts if proven to commit criminal acts of corruption, as long as there is an evil intention (menrea) and cause losses to state finances.

Understanding the Functions of PTUN and District Courts

It is essential to understand that both PTUN and District Courts (Crimes/Corruption) have their respective functions and there should be no conflict of norms. The parameters used by PTUN in testing the legality of decisions or actions of government officials are legislation and good general principles of government (AUPB). Meanwhile, the Corruption Court focuses more on written regulations.

Position Responsibilities and Personal Responsibilities

In the context of administrative law, there is a clear difference between position responsibilities and personal responsibilities. Position responsibility relates to legality (validity) or juridical disability, while personal responsibility is more related to the behavior of functionary and maladministration. Criminal responsibility, basically, is a personal responsibility that involves evil intentions to harm the country for personal interests.

Conclusion

With a deep understanding of the interaction between administrative and criminal law, it is hoped that the criminal judicial process of corruption in Indonesia can be carried out more effectively and fairly, and can prevent the abuse of authority in the future. This analysis highlights the importance of understanding the similarities and differences between administrative law and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority. By doing so, we can ensure that the criminal justice process is carried out in a fair and effective manner, and that the abuse of authority is prevented.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Juridical Analysis of Misuse of Authority in the Criminal Justice Process of Corruption

Q: What is the main purpose of the juridical analysis of misuse of authority in the criminal justice process of corruption?

A: The main purpose of the juridical analysis is to understand the relationship between administrative law and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority, and to determine whether the results of the APIP examination or PTUN decision stating that there is no element of abuse of authority carried out by government officials can bind the criminal justice process.

Q: What are the similarities between administrative law and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority?

A: The similarities include:

Equation of Use of Terms: Both administrative law and criminal law use similar terms to describe the abuse of authority.
Equation of Understanding: The understanding of abuse of authority is similar in both administrative law and criminal law.
Equation of the Subject of Norms: The subject of norms, namely government officials, is the same in both administrative law and criminal law.
Equations related to Forbidden Acts (Verbod): The forbidden acts (verbod) are similar in both administrative law and criminal law.

Q: What are the pros and cons among legal experts regarding the relationship between administrative law and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority?

A: Some experts argue that abuse of authority must be completed first through PTUN before proceeding to the Corruption Court, while others believe that government officials can be sentenced to criminal acts if proven to commit criminal acts of corruption, as long as there is an evil intention (menrea) and cause losses to state finances.

Q: What are the functions of PTUN and District Courts (Crimes/Corruption) in the context of abuse of authority?

A: PTUN has the authority to examine and decide on the absence of elements of abuse of authority, while the Corruption Court focuses more on written regulations. Both PTUN and District Courts have their respective functions and there should be no conflict of norms.

Q: What is the difference between position responsibilities and personal responsibilities in the context of administrative law?

A: Position responsibility relates to legality (validity) or juridical disability, while personal responsibility is more related to the behavior of functionary and maladministration. Criminal responsibility, basically, is a personal responsibility that involves evil intentions to harm the country for personal interests.

Q: What is the significance of understanding the interaction between administrative and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority?

A: Understanding the interaction between administrative and criminal law can ensure that the criminal justice process is carried out in a fair and effective manner, and that the abuse of authority is prevented.

Q: What are the implications of the juridical analysis of misuse of authority in the criminal justice process of corruption?

A: The implications include the need for a deeper understanding of the relationship between administrative law and criminal law, and the importance of ensuring that the criminal justice process is carried out in a fair and effective manner.

Q: What are the future directions for research on the juridical analysis of misuse of authority in the criminal justice process of corruption?

A: Future research directions may include:

Further analysis of the relationship between administrative law and criminal law: A more in-depth analysis of the similarities and differences between administrative law and criminal law in the context of abuse of authority.
Development of a framework for determining abuse of authority: The development of a framework for determining abuse of authority in the context of administrative law and criminal law.
Implementation of the findings in practice: The implementation of the findings in practice, including the development of policies and procedures for preventing and addressing abuse of authority.