Tafsir Wewenang Seponering Jaksa Agung Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 29/PUU-XIV/2016
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31328/wy.v4i2.2614Keywords:
Attorney General, Disclaimer of Cases in the Public Interest, Constitutional Court's DecisionAbstract
The affirmation of the attorney general's authority in the Elucidation of Article 35 letter C of the Indonesian Prosecutor's Law after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 29/PUU-XIV/2016 still leaves problems and has the potential to cause new legal problems. This research will look at and analyze how the authority of the Attorney General after the decision is as well as how the concept of an ideal arrangement that ensures legal certainty. This research uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach and case studies which in this case are court decisions. The results showed that after Constitutional Court decision, there was a change in the meaning of the Elucidation of Article 35 letter c of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Law. Based on the results of these interpretations and decisions, the legal implications that followed were related to the conditions for setting aside cases in the public interest, namely in setting aside cases in the public interest, the Attorney General was required to 'require' first to pay attention to suggestions and opinions from state power agencies that have relationship with the problem. The concept of an ideal arrangement that can guarantee legal certainty as an indicator to measure and assess the implementation of the Attorney General's obligations can be done by clarifying the definition of "state power agencies" for which advice and opinions are requested and making criteria for the term "public interest".References
Buku
Alhumami, Khunaifi. “Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia: Lembaga Penegak Hukum Di Antara Bayang-Bayang Dua Kaki Kekuasaan." dalam Tim MaPPI-FH UI (2015). Bunga Rampai Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, Jakarta: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.
Arin Karniasari. (2012). Tinjauan Teoritis, Historis, Yuridis Dan Praktis Terhadap Wewenang Jaksa Agung Dalam Mengesampingkan Perkara Demi Kepentingan Umum. Jakarta: Tesis pada Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia Program Pascasarjana.
Asshiddiqie, Jimly. (2006). Perkembangan Dan Konsolidasi Lembaga Negara Pasca Reformasi. Cet. Kedua. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
Darmono. (2013). Penyampingan Perkara Pidana Seponering Dalam Penegakan Hukum. Jakarta: Solusi Publishing.
Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2001). “Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia.†Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
J.J.H. Bruggink. Refleksi Tentang Hukum: Pengertian-Pengertian Dasar Dalam Teori Hukum. Edited by Bernard Arief Sidharta. (2015). Bandung: Citra Aditya Bhakti, 2015.
Miriam Budiardjo. (2008). Dasar Dasar Ilmu Politik. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Nomensen Sinamo. (2010). Hukum Tata Negara Suatu Kajian Kritis Tentang Kelembagaan Negara. Jakarta: Jela Permata Aksara.
O.C. Kaligis. (2011). Deponering, Teori Dan Praktik. Bandung: PT. Alumni.
Putro, Widodo Dwi. (2011). Kritik Terhadap Paradigma Positivisme Hukum. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing.
Roestandi, Achmad. (2005). Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Tanya Jawab. Jakarta: Sekretaris Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia.
Syukri Asy’ari, et.al. (2013). Model Dan Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang (Studi Putusan Tahun 2003-2012),. Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian Perkara, Pengelolaan Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi Mahkamah Konstitusi RI.
Sоerјоnо Sоekantо dan Sri Mamudјi, (1985). Penelitian Hukum Nоrmatif . Јakarta: Raјawali Pers.
Laporan Hasil Kerja Tim Analisis Dan Evaluasi Hukum Tentang Pelaksanaan Asas Oportunitas Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Tahun Anggaran 2006.†yang bekerja berdasarkan Keputusan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia RI Nomor: G1-11.PR.09.03 Tahun 2006 Tentang Pembentukan Tim-Tim Analisis dan Evaluasi Hukum Tahun Anggaran 2006.
Jurnal
Chalil, Sri Mulyati. (2015) “Pengesampingan Perkara (Deponering) Oleh Jaksa Agung.†Wacana Pranata: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 15, no. 1: 1–10.
Handayani, Yeni. (2016) “Jaksa Agung Dan Pengesampingan Perkara Demi Kepentingan Umum.†Jurnal Rechtvinding , 1–7.
Nazriyah, Riri. (2010) “Pemberhentian Jaksa Agung Dan Hak Prerogatif Presiden.†Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 513–40.
Tomuka, Angga A. (2017) “Tugas Dan Wewenang Jaksa Agung Mengesampingkan Perkara Demi Kepentingan Umum Setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 40/PUU-XIV/2016.†Jurnal Lex Privatum V, no. 6: 46–55.
Triwati, Ani. (2021) “Pengesampingan Perkara Demi Kepentingan Umum Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.†Jurnal Ius Constituendum 6, no. April: 32–54.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
AttributionYou must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to its articles' full texts and allows readers to use them for any other lawful purpose. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions. Finally, the journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions
- Authors are allowed to archive their submitted article in an open access repository
- Authors are allowed to archive the final published article in an open access repository with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal
========================================
Editor-in-Chief
Widya Yuridika: Journal of Law.
Faculty of Law, Universitas Widya Gama, Malang, Indonesia.
