Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal LAW REFORM Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Konstitusi
Rahman, Wahbi
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Discretion of Government Officials Detrimental to State Finances: The Intersection Between Administrative Illegality and Criminal Illegality Rahman, Wahbi; Sudarsono, Sudarsono; Djatmika, Prija; Madjid, Abdul; Rehulina, Rehulina
LAW REFORM Vol 20, No 2 (2024)
Publisher : PROGRAM STUDI MAGISTER ILMU HUKUM FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS DIPONEGORO SEMARANG

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/lr.v20i2.64129

Abstract

The regulation of the criminal accountability system for discretion that causes state losses is governed by Law Number 31 of 1999, as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption. This law includes the element of "abusing authority, opportunity, or means available due to one's position or rank that may cause state financial losses," which can lead to criminal punishment. Additionally, Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration also regulates the imposition of administrative sanctions. The purpose of this research is to analyze the priority mechanism when there is an overlap between administrative and criminal illegality in cases of discretion by government officials that result in state financial losses. This research employs a normative legal method. The findings suggest that, according to current legislation, when a case involves overlapping issues between the Corruption Law and the Government Administration Law, priority should be given to administrative measures based on the Government Administration Law. This approach is aimed at improving orderly government administration and preventing abuse of authority.
Legal Policy of Disparity in Sentencing as a Ground for Judicial Review in Indonesia Corruption Cases Djatmika, Prija; Rahman, Wahbi; Wibowo, Dwi Edi; Weku, Robert Lengkong; Osman, Noor Dzuhaidah
Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Konstitusi Vol. 8 Issue 2 (2025) Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Konstitusi
Publisher : Faculty of Sharia, Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Profesor Kiai Haji Saifuddin Zuhri Purwokerto, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24090/volksgeist.v8i2.13287

Abstract

Article 263 paragraph (2) of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code limits the grounds on which a Judicial Review of a court decision may be filed. This limitation stems from the extraordinary nature of the Judicial Review, as it provides a mechanism to reopen a case that has obtained permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde). Errors in assessing the grounds for a Judicial Review can undermine the principles of legal certainty and justice, which are fundamental to the rule of law. This paper analyzes the use of sentencing disparity in corruption cases as a basis for Judicial Review, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Indonesia. The study employs a normative-descriptive research method. The findings indicate that sentencing disparity in corruption cases is multi-causal, suggesting that it does not always constitute a factual matter but may also involve legal considerations. The study concludes that determining sentencing disparity as an instance of judicial error in a Judicial Review must be conducted with due regard to the principle of judicial independence. Furthermore, with the issuance of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 concerning Sentencing Guidelines under Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law, issues of sentencing disparity should ideally be resolved through ordinary legal remedies such as appeals or cassation.
Co-Authors Abdul Madjid Dwi Edi Wibowo Osman, Noor Dzuhaidah Prija Djatmika, Prija Rehulina Rehulina, Rehulina robert lengkong weku Sudarsono