The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
KONSTITUSIONALITAS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT KEWENANGAN MEMPERPANJANG MASA JABATAN PIMPINAN KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 112/PUU-XX/2022)
The Constitutional Court Decision Number 112/PUU-XX/2022 concerns the judicial review of Law Number 19 of 2020 regarding the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). One of the articles under review was Article 34, which relates to the term of office of the KPK members. In reviewing Article 34, the Constitutional Court should not have intervened in matters concerning the term of public office, as this issue falls under the authority of another institution, namely the legislative body. This review should not have involved the Constitutional Court because it pertains to an open legal policy matter. Therefore, as a judicial power institution, the Constitutional Court is considered to have exceeded the limits of its authority in exercising its powers. Given the issue of overreach and public controversy, it is necessary to carefully examine the primary duties of the judiciary institution, particularly from the perspectives of its authority and Maslahah. This research uses a type of normative judicial research. As for this type of research, there is an analytical descriptive research the reveals laws and regulations reletad to a legal theory that is relies upon. This research approach uses the Legislation approach. The data saorces ased primary legal matereals and secondary legal materials. Meanwhile, in conducting data analysis, this study uses qualitative deductive analysis using the reliance on the views and Maslahah. The results of the study are as follows: (a) The Constitutional Court, as a judicial authority institution, examined Case Number 112/PUU-XX/2022 in exercising its authority as the guardian of the constitution and as an alternative institution seeking justice. However, the Constitutional Court's decision did not produce a fair verdict when referring to Article 24 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution regarding the duties of judicial power, and it contradicted Article 28D paragraph 3 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s ruling only accommodated individual interests, considering that the term of the KPK leadership was also about to end, while at the same time many people wanted to become KPK Commissioners. (b) The Constitutional Court does not have the authority to regulate public office positions, as the terms of public office are regulated by the legislative institution as part of open legal policy. (c) The Constitutional Court’s approval to extend the term of the KPK leadership will have implications for other institutions because the Constitutional Court’s decisions are final and binding, with no room for correction or appeal. This leaves the possibility for future challenges to term limits. (d) From the perspective of Maslahah (public interest), considering that many KPK leaders have violated the code of ethics, extending the term of the leadership of the Corruption Eradication Commission will cause harm.
FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
NIM.: 23203011152 Yusran Sibawaih, S.Sos
KONSTITUSIONALITAS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT KEWENANGAN MEMPERPANJANG MASA JABATAN PIMPINAN KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 112/PUU-XX/2022) (Text)
KONSTITUSIONALITAS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT KEWENANGAN MEMPERPANJANG MASA JABATAN PIMPINAN KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 112/PUU-XX/2022) (Other)
HTML Summary of #74272 KONSTITUSIONALITAS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT KEWENANGAN MEMPERPANJANG MASA JABATAN PIMPINAN KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 112/PUU-XX/2022)