Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jaksa: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Politik
Rengga Kusuma Putra
Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer, Semarang, Indonesia
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
National Security Narratives and the Expansion of Executive Power: A Legal-Political Perspective on Emergency governance Rengga Kusuma Putra
Jaksa : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): APRIL: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik (JAKSA)
Publisher : Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/r6mwn482

Abstract

The increasing complexity of contemporary security threats has led governments worldwide to adopt emergency governance mechanisms that expand executive authority in the name of national security. While such measures are often justified as necessary responses to terrorism, public health crises, cybersecurity threats, and geopolitical instability, they also raise concerns regarding constitutional limits, democratic accountability, and the preservation of the rule of law. This study examines how national security narratives function as instruments of political legitimation that facilitate the expansion of executive power during periods of emergency governance. The research employs a doctrinal legal research approach combined with political analysis to investigate the interaction between legal frameworks governing emergency powers and political processes that shape public acceptance of extraordinary governmental authority. The analysis draws upon constitutional provisions, emergency legislation, judicial decisions, policy documents, and scholarly literature concerning national security, executive authority, and democratic governance. The findings demonstrate that the expansion of executive power is not solely a legal consequence of emergency conditions but is significantly influenced by the political legitimation generated through security narratives. The study develops the  Security–Legitimation–Executive Expansion (SLEE)  framework, which explains how the construction of security threats produces political legitimacy that enables the concentration of executive authority and reshapes institutional power relations. The findings further reveal that the risks associated with emergency governance emerge primarily when extraordinary powers are exercised without effective legislative oversight, judicial review, transparency, and temporal limitations. The study contributes to the literature on emergency governance, constitutionalism, and national security by highlighting political legitimation as a critical mechanism linking security narratives to executive power expansion. It also provides policy implications for designing emergency governance systems capable of balancing effective security responses with democratic accountability and constitutional safeguards.
Pemetaan Rasionalitas Jaksa dalam Seleksi Perkara Korupsi Pendekatan Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Methodius Kossay; Rengga Kusuma Putra
Jaksa : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026): JULI: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik (JAKSA)
Publisher : Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/4rvhvq98

Abstract

Prosecutorial discretion in corruption case selection is often explained through linear causal models that emphasize single determinants such as evidentiary strength, institutional pressure, or case severity; however, such approaches are limited in capturing the configurational complexity of decision-making within prosecutorial institutions. This study aims to identify configurational pathways that lead to high prosecutorial priority in corruption case handling using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). The study applies a configurational research design based on fsQCA, analyzing six causal conditions consisting of financial loss, actor complexity, public attention, evidence strength, institutional pressure, and asset recovery potential. Data are calibrated into fuzzy-set membership scores (0–1) using a direct calibration approach, followed by truth table construction, necessity analysis, sufficiency analysis, and Boolean minimization using intermediate solutions. The findings reveal three distinct causal pathways leading to high prosecutorial priority: institutionally reinforced legal rationality characterized by high financial loss, strong evidence, and high institutional pressure; visibility-driven prioritization combining actor complexity and public attention with moderate evidentiary strength; and technocratic fiscal rationality driven by high financial loss, high asset recovery potential, and low institutional pressure. No single condition is found to be necessary, confirming equifinality and causal asymmetry. Prosecutorial prioritization in corruption cases is therefore best understood as a configurational phenomenon shaped by multiple interacting rationalities rather than single causal factors, introducing the concept of configurational prosecutorial rationality within criminal justice decision-making.
Co-Authors Methodius Kossay