Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.659
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Veritas et Justitia Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Media Iuris
Awaludin Nur Ihfan
Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya
Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE UNQUALIFIED OPINION BY THE AUDIT BOARD OF INDONESIA AND ANTI CORRUPTION ACT Ihfan, Awaludin Nur
Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Vol. 8 No. 1 (2023): Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Volume 8 Nomor 1 September 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23920/jbmh.v8i1.1239

Abstract

An Unqualified Opinion (Opini Wajar Tanpa Pengecualian) is an assessment provided by the Audit Board of Indonesia to state institutions whose financial management is deemed appropriate. However, it is often observed that entities receiving the An Unqualified Opinion designation are subsequently found to have engaged in criminal acts of corruption, which raises public doubts concerning the credibility of BPK's assessments. This study elucidates the correlation between BPK's authority to issue opinions and efforts to combat corrupt practices. The research methodology employed is juridical-normative with a legislative and case-based approach. The findings indicate that Audit Board of Indonesia plays a pivotal role in the fight against corruption. Audit Board of Indonesia 's authority to provide opinions hinges on compliance with the relevant legislation, suggesting that Audit Board of Indonesia can detect the presence or absence of criminal elements committed by the audited entities. The occurrence of corruption cases involving An Unqualified Opinion recipients is primarily due to opportunities and disclosure gaps in the audit process. A correlation exists between Audit Board of Indonesia 's opinions and anti-corruption efforts, albeit limited to the specific category of corruption related to the state's financial scope under Article 2 of Law No. 17/2003. Thus, Audit Board of Indonesia can only identify cases of corruption directly linked to the state's finances, namely Corruption Adversely Affecting State Finances under Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 31/1999 and Embezzlement in Office under Article 8 of Law No. 20/2001.
Problematika Kewenangan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Dalam Pengujian Unsur Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Ihfan, Awaludin Nur
Media Iuris Vol. 7 No. 1 (2024): MEDIA IURIS
Publisher : Universitas Airlangga

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20473/mi.v7i1.44793

Abstract

AbstractThe Administrative Court has the authority to examine the elements of abuse of authority based on Article 21 of Government Administration Act in conjunction with Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) 4/2015. This authority has several problems such as the vagueness of the limitation of authority in Article 2 of Perma 4/2015 and the legal vacuum of the application period. The purpose of this research is to provide a prescription to answer some of these problems. The type of research uses normative legal research with a statutory approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. The results of the analysis show that the phrase before the criminal process in Article 2 paragraph (1) can be interpreted as before the investigation process because it is the earliest stage of the criminal process under the Criminal Procedure Code, but the provision must still be reformulated because it results in dualism of authority and contradicts the purpose of the establishment of the abuse of authority element test. Meanwhile, the phrase APIP supervision results in Article 2 paragraph (2) must be interpreted as the results of supervision both in the form of Regular and Specific Purpose in order to provide protection and equality before the law for parties harmed by both forms of supervision. Regarding the legal vacuum of the application deadline, it cannot directly apply the provisions of the lawsuit deadline in the State Administrative Court Law because of the difference in concepts and paradigms between the two. It is better to conduct a more comprehensive study in advance in order to formulate the provisions of the grace period for testing the elements of abuse of authority with legal certainty and justice.Keywords: Authority; State Administrative Court; Examining Elements of Abuse of Authority. AbstrakPTUN memiliki kewenangan untuk melakukan pengujian unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang berdasarkan Pasal 21 UUAP juncto Perma 4/2015. Kewenangan tersebut memiliki beberapa problematika seperti kekaburan batasan kewenangan dalam Pasal 2 Perma 4/2015 serta kekosongan hukum tenggang waktu permohonan. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memberikan preskripsi guna menjawab beberapa problematika tersebut. Jenis penelitian menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa frasa sebelum adanya proses pidana dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) dapat dimaknai sebagai sebelum proses penyelidikan karena merupakan tahap proses pidana paling awal berdasarkan KUHAP, tetapi ketentuan tersebut tetap harus direformulasi karena mengakibatkan dualisme kewenangan serta bertentangan dengan tujuan dibentuknya pengujian unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang. Sedangkan frasa hasil pengawasan APIP dalam Pasal 2 ayat (2) harus dimaknai sebagai hasil pengawasan baik dalam bentuk Reguler maupun Tujuan Tertentu agar dapat memberikan perlindungan serta persamaan dihadapan hukum bagi pihak yang dirugikan oleh kedua bentuk pengawasan tersebut. Terkait kekosongan hukum tenggang waktu permohonan tidak bisa secara langsung menerapkan ketentuan tenggang waktu gugatan dalam UU PTUN karena perbedaan konsep dan paradigma antara keduanya. Sebaiknya dilakukan pengkajian yang lebih komprehensif terlebih dahulu guna merumuskan ketentuan tenggang waktu permohonan pengujian unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang yang berkepastian hukum dan berkeadilan.Kata Kunci: Kewenangan; Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara; Pengujian Unsur Penyalahgunaan Wewenang.
DISPARITAS “HASIL PENGAWASAN APARAT PENGAWASAN INTERN PEMERINTAH” DALAM PENGUJIAN UNSUR PENYALAHGUNAAN WEWENANG Awaludin Nur Ihfan; Shinta Hadiyantina; Riana Susmayanti
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 12 No. 1 (2026): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v12i1.9712

Abstract

The scope of the Administrative Court’s authority to examine elements of abuse of authority under Article 2 paragraph (2) of Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2015 remains contentious, particularly regarding the interpretation of the phrase “APIP Supervision Results”. Divergent interpretations in judicial practice have generated legal uncertainty and affected access to legal protection for government officials seeking judicial review of alleged abuse of authority. This article examines the interpretive disparities surrounding the phrase and analyzes the implications of the diversity of supervisory mechanisms within Indonesia’s regulatory framework. With normative legal research using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches to examine relevant legislation, judicial decisions, and doctrinal perspectives concerning internal government supervision and administrative justice, the findings in this research indicate that differing judicial interpretive approaches have contributed significantly to legal uncertainty regarding the admissibility of petitions concerning abuse of authority. Moreover, the diversity of supervisory forms regulated in various laws demonstrates that interpretation based solely on the classification or form of supervision is inadequate. This study proposes a shift from a formalistic toward a substantive interpretive approach, whereby “APIP Supervision Results” are assessed based on the substance and objectives of the supervisory findings rather than their formal categorization. Therefore, it recommends vertical and horizontal harmonization of supervisory regulations to strengthen legal certainty and ensure effective legal protection for government officials through the mechanism for examining abuse of authority.
Co-Authors Riana Susmayanti Shinta Hadiyantina