Nur Fahrudin, Muhammad (2007) KEWENANGAN KEPOLISIAN KEJAKSAAN DAN KPK DALAM PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI. Other thesis, University of Muhammadiyah Malang.
Download (148kB) | Preview
Handling of corruption case in Indonesia at the time of implementaion of invitors Nomor 31 The year 1999 in normatif subjects to regulation of mains which mother in inviting Nomor 8 The year 1981 ( KUHAP), along with other regulation having interrelationship with the rule. Which in KUHAP only recognize 2 institute or institution in charge handles crime that is Police and Attorney's Office. Number [Code/Law] 31 The year 1999 jo. Number [Code/Law] 20 The year 2001, gives authority to attorney to do investigation and investigation in corruption case. Attorney Authority here [shall] no longer be tentative because with abstracting of invitors Nomor 3 The year 1971 on 16 Augusts 1999, hence Attorney authority [shall] no longer related to section 284 article 2 KUHAP. Thereby in corruption case there are two investigator government officers that is Attorney and Police. After two years invitors Nomor 31 The year 1999 implemented, then is performed [a] change to eradication [code/law] of corruption crime that is with invitors Nomor 20 the year 2001 but not entirely is changed only some of only in invitors Nomor 20 the year 2001 investigation authorities in normatif follows procedure found on invitors Nomor 31 The year 1999, or equally there are two institutes in charge menyidik corruption case to that is institute Kepolisian and Attorney's Office. But based on commendation of invitors Nomor 31 The year 1999 as written at section 37 Number [Code/Law]S 31 The year 1999 which says " During two years since [code/law] is implemented, formed Komisi Nasional is having the character of permanent, self-supporting and independent" hence commendation in the [code/law] signs existence of three institutes in charge handles corruption crime that is Kepolisian, Kejaksaan and Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Doesn't close possibility that there will be collision between KPK with institution or eradication team of corruption which there [are] or even happened authority overlap ( over lapping). This research takes problem formula: 1. What police authority, attorney and KPK in handling corruption crime? 2. What if happened authority dispute between third institute pemberantas the corruption? This research applies approach method of yuridis comparability, that is that is comparing or synchronization level horizontally with studying legislation that is on an equal in an certain area applied. KPK has authority which more than both institutes pemberantas other corruption that is police and attorney though there is authority equality of however KPK has authority which more compared to both the institutes for example in the case of investigation or prosecution of authoritative KPK takes over from police or attorney is being handles the corruption case. Refers to invitors Nomor 30 The year 2002, acquisition can be done if (there are) any report from public that the corruption crime is not folowed up, handling process long draw out without reason is earning responsibility to answer, handling of corruption crime contains element of corruption, existence of handling resistance of corruption caused by interference from executive, legislative and also yudikatif and other situation which according to police or attorney has made handling difficult to be done. However there are one authorities given to police and attorney but is not given to KPK is stop investigation or prosecution. In the event of authority dispute between third eradication institutes of corruption ( police, attorney and KPK) in handling corruption case hence in charge breaks authority dispute of is Mahkamah constitution, because one of authority from Mahkamah Konstitusi is break authority dispute of state institute as commendation from UUD 1945 Section 24C. The conclusion, from third institute pemberantas corruption ( police, attorney and KPK) has equality in one's power handles corruption crime, however having authority is more is KPK. In the event of authority dispute between third institutes pemberantas corruption ( police, attorney and KPK) in handling corruption case hence in charge breaks authority dispute of is Mahkamah constitution.
|Item Type:||Thesis (Other)|
|Subjects:||K Law > K Law (General)|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Law > Department of Law|
|Depositing User:||Zainul Afandi|
|Date Deposited:||27 Jun 2012 06:34|
|Last Modified:||27 Jun 2012 06:34|
Actions (login required)