Discretion as to the Object of the Criminal Law of Corruption in Indonesia

  • Authors

    • Boy Yendra Tamin
    • . .
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.9.20627

    Received date: September 30, 2018

    Accepted date: September 30, 2018

    Published date: October 2, 2018

  • Discretion, Object Of Law, Criminal Corruption.

  • Abstract

    The high number of corruption cases among government officials in Indonesia cannot be separated from what is the object of the criminal law of corruption, especially since corruption laws in Indonesia do not distinguish between discretion and abuse of authority due to position. This raises the question, can discretion be the legal object of criminal corruption? This legal research is carried out with conceptual approach, statute approach and case approach, it can be concluded that discretion cannot be used as an object of the criminal law of corruption because discretion is not based on the principle of legality. Placing discretion as the object of the law of corruption is inconsistent with the demands of the welfare state. In the use of discretion, it is necessary only to set strict standards and supervision, and the use of discretion with consistent purpose principles. And it must be stated in the Act, that the expression is not the object of corruption.

  • References

    1. Choobamroong, A. (1991). Corruption Control: A Comparison be-tween Thailand and Sweden, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences -- formerly Kasetsart Journal (Social Sciences), Volume 012, Issue 1, Pages 1-9.
    2. Tamin, B. Y. (2018). Why Does Indonesia Need a Clarity Concept of Legal Liability of Government Officials in Corruption Eradica-tion Efforts?. The Social Sciences, 13 (3), 539-547.
    3. Mayer, S., & Patti, F. I. (2017). Confronting Political Disagreement about Sentencing: A Deliberative Democratic Framework. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 20 (4), 616-663.
    4. Yang, Y. (2012). Fundamental Research on the Administrative Dis-cretion Standard. Beijing L. Rev., 3, 128.
    5. Ridwan, H. R. (2011). Hukum Administrasi Negara, cetakan ketujuh. Jakarta. PT Raja Grafindo Persada. 2013. Hukum Admin-istrasi Negara. Edisi revisi. Jakarta. Rajawali Pers.
    6. Gans-Morse, J., Borges, M., Makarin, A., Mannah Blankson, T., Nickow, A., & Zhang, D. (2017). Reducing Bureaucratic Corrup-tion: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on What Works. World Devel-opment, Volume 105, Pages 171-188.
    7. Shaheydar, A., & Navaseri, M. (2016). Administrative corruption in Iran's legal system and ways of its correction. Journal of Current Research in Science, (2), 880.
    8. Tamin, B. Y. (2017). Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Pejabat Pemerintahan Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Lingkup Tu-gas dan Kewenangan Administratif, (Doctoral dissertation, Univer-sitas Andalas).
    9. Yi, C. (2015). Dan Hough (ed): corruption, anti-corruption and governance, Crime Law Soc Change, Springer, p. 285–293.
    10. Ditsawanon, S. (2010). Problems in the Consolidation of Democra-cy in Thailand: The Study of Trust in Political Institutions, Kaset-sart Journal of Social Sciences -- formerly Kasetsart Journal (Social Sciences), Volume 031, Issue 2, Pages 166-181.
    11. Addink, G. H., & Ten Berge, J. B. J. M. (2007). Study on Innova-tion of Legal Means for Eliminating Corruption in the Public Ser-vice in the Netherlands. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 11 (1), 1-34.
    12. Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously (Vol. 136). Harvard University Press.
    13. Lukman, M. (1996). Eksistensi Peraturan Kebijaksanaan dalam Bi-dang Perencanaan dan Pelaksanaan Rencana Pembangunan di Dae-rah serta Dampaknya terhadap Pembangunan Materi Hukum Tertu-lis Nasional. Disertasi Doktor Universitas Padjadjaran. Bandung.
    14. Nata, S. (1988). Hukum Administrasi Negara.Jakarta, Rajawali.
    15. Basah, S. (1992). Perlindungan hukum terhadap sikap-tindak ad-ministrasi negara. Alumni, Bandung.
    16. Freund, E. (1915). The Substitution of Rule for Discretion in Public Law. American Political Science Review, 9 (4), 666-676.
    17. Eldar, S., & Laist, E. (2017). The Irrelevance of Motive and the Rule of Law. New Criminal Law Review: In International and In-terdisciplinary Journal, 20 (3), 433-464.
    18. Bachsan, M. (1990). Pokok-pokok Hukum Administrasi Negara, Bandung, PT.Citra Aditya Bakti.
    19. Marzuki, L. (1996). Peraturan Kebijaksanaan (Beleidsregel) Hakikat serta Fungsinya Selaku Sarana Hukum Pemerintahan, Makalah pada Penataran Nasional Hukum Acara dan Hukum Adminitrasi Negara, fakultas Hukum Universitas Hasanudin. Ujung Pandang.
    20. Muchsan, (1981). Beberapa Catatan Tentang Hukum Admnistrasi Negara, Jogyakarta, Liberty.
    21. Taylor, I., & Kelly, J. (2006). Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19 (7), 629-642. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610704662
    22. Istanto, F. S. (2007). Penelitian hukum. Yogyakarta: CV. Ganda.
    23. Cohen, M. L., & Olson, K. C. (2010). Legal research in a nutshell. West Publishing Corporation, p.93.
    24. Syamsudin, M. (2007). Operasional Penelitian Hukum. Penerbit Ra-jai Pers, Jakarta, Cet. I. p.58.
    25. Mahmud Marzuki, P. (2005). Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media.
    26. Yuliandri. (2009). Asas-asas Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Yang Baik, gagasan Pembentukan Undang-Undang Berkelanjutan, PT. RadjaGrafindo Persada, Jakarta. p.17
    27. Adji, I. S. (2014). Administrative Penal Law (Kearah Konstruksi Pidana Limitatif). Disampaikan sebagai Sumbangsih Tulisan untuk Pelatihan Pidana & Kriminologi dengan Topik “Asas Asas Hukum Pidana & Kriminologi Serta Per-kembangannya Dewasa Ini” pada pada hari Minggu sampai dengan Kamis, tanggal, 23.
    28. Effendy, M. (2010). Apakah suatu kebijakan dapat dikriminal-isasi?(Dari perspektif hukum pidana/korupsi). Inovatif: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum.
    29. Juwana, H. (2010). Mengurai Konspirari Penguasa dan Pengusaha, Jakarta, Penerbit Buku Kompas.
    30. Pidato Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono menanggapi hasil keputusan rapat paripurna DPR Republik Indonesia tanggal 4 Maret 2010.
    31. Wallander, L., & Molander, A. (2014). Disentangling professional discretion: A conceptual and methodological approach. Professions and Professionalism, International Journal of Social Quality, Vol-ume 6, No 2 Winter 2016. p. 14.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Yendra Tamin, B., & ., . (2018). Discretion as to the Object of the Criminal Law of Corruption in Indonesia. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4.9), 100-103. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.9.20627