Abstract
Hopes that the Constitutional Court (CC) is not acting as legislator (maker norm) was not easy to achieve. This is because in some cases the judicial examined, tried, and decided, the CC actually act as a norm-making body (one of them in the Case Number 21/PUU-XIV/2016). Thus, in terms of the concept of state power, the CC has a dual role as the holders of state power in the judiciary and the legislature. The problem of this study is the interpretation of the CC of the of conspiracy and the relationship between of conspiracy according to Article 88 of the Code of Penal (CP) in accordance with Article 15 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption (LEC) before and after the enactment quo decision. CC interpretation against conspiracy is the right step to ensure legal certainty. However, the CC for an interpretation of action are included unlawful. Thus, in hearing and deciding the case a quo, the CC took a negative role, namely to uphold the law by breaking the law. The relationship between conspiracy under Article 88 of CP with according to Article 15 of LEC before the stipulated judgment a quo is not applied the principle of Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generalis after adoption of a quo decision to do is to be the application of the principle of Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generalis.
Highlights
Tujuan penelitian ini untuk menjelaskan tafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap pemufakatan jahat oleh koruptor berdasarkan perkara Nomor 21/PUU-XIV/2016 serta untuk menjelaskan hubungan antara pemufakatan jahat menurut Pasal 88 KUHP dan pemufakatan jahat menurut Pasal 15 UU PTPK, baik sebelum maupun setelah ditetapkan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XIV/2016.
Berdasarkan pertimbangan hukum dari Hakim Konstitusi, Manahan M.P Sitompul, yang memiliki pendapat berbeda (dissenting opinions) dalam memutus perkara Nomor 21/PUU-XIV/2016, dinyatakan bahwa UU PTPK seharusnya memberi definisi atau menyebut secara jelas unsur-unsur pemufakatan jahat yang dimaksud dalam UU PTPK.
Pertanyaan tersebut timbul karena berdasarkan putusan perkara Nomor 21/PUU-XIV/ 2016, MK memberikan definisi atau menyebut secara jelas unsur-unsur pemufakatan jahat yang dimaksud dalam UU PTPK.
Summary
Tujuan penelitian ini untuk menjelaskan tafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap pemufakatan jahat oleh koruptor berdasarkan perkara Nomor 21/PUU-XIV/2016 serta untuk menjelaskan hubungan antara pemufakatan jahat menurut Pasal 88 KUHP dan pemufakatan jahat menurut Pasal 15 UU PTPK, baik sebelum maupun setelah ditetapkan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XIV/2016. Berdasarkan pertimbangan hukum dari Hakim Konstitusi, Manahan M.P Sitompul, yang memiliki pendapat berbeda (dissenting opinions) dalam memutus perkara Nomor 21/PUU-XIV/2016, dinyatakan bahwa UU PTPK seharusnya memberi definisi atau menyebut secara jelas unsur-unsur pemufakatan jahat yang dimaksud dalam UU PTPK.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
