ANALISIS YURIDIS PENYERAHAN KEWENANGAN KPK DALAM PASAL 11 AYAT (2) UU NO. 19 TAHUN 2019 TENTANG PERUBAHAN KEDUA UU NO. 30 TAHUN 2002 TENTANG KPK

The handover of investigative authority by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to the Police and Prosecutor's Office as regulated in Article 11 of the Corruption Eradication Committee Law does not yet provide clear regulations regarding the handover and selection mechanism. This creates a dualism in investigative authority carried out by the Police and the Prosecutor's Office. Therefore, the research focuses on the problems that will be studied in this paper, namely 1) How do the KPK regulatory provisions require that investigations and inquiries be made to the Police?; 2). What are the regulatory provisions for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to declare investigations and inquiries to the Prosecutor's Office?; The research method in this paper is to use a normative legal research type, using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. This research produces the first conclusion, the provisions of the norms of Article 11 of the Corruption Eradication Committee Law must be understood as a context for providing legal certainty in the criminal justice process. The logical consequence of this paradigm requires legislators to formulate specific and definite norms without wide room for interpretation. However, the existence of this article, especially paragraph (2), actually widens the space for interpretation and creates legal uncertainty in the implementation of law enforcement for criminal acts of corruption. Especially against the Corruption Eradication Committee, the Prosecutor's Office and the Police. Second, the regulations in article 11 paragraph (2) of the Corruption Eradication Committee Law fall into the classification of legal ambiguity. This is what causes the Corruption Eradication Commission, Prosecutor's Office and Police to become confused in taking action against Corruption. Legal certainty is not only based on norms, but there is an obligation for these norms to be clear about their specific aims and objectives so that law enforcement does not give rise to multiple interpretations and conflict under the law.