Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Immunity Clause in The 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia Baharuddin Riqiey; Vieta Imelda Cornelis; Duke Arie Widagdo; Rizky Bangun Wibisono
APHTN-HAN Vol 5 No 1 (2026): JAPHTN-HAN, January 2026
Publisher : Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Administrasi Negara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55292/japhtnhan.v5i1.204

Indonesia is a country with a written constitution that contains various substantive provisions governing state structure, the distribution of power, human rights, and limitations on authority. Among these provisions are norms that grant immunity to certain state institutions, commonly referred to as immunity clauses. In the Indonesian constitutional context, immunity clauses are reflected in Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. These provisions grant immunity to the House of Representatives (DPR), both institutionally and individually to its members. This raises an important constitutional question as to whether the existence of such immunity clauses is compatible with the principle of equality before the law. This study employs doctrinal legal research using statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches. The findings demonstrate that Article 7C constitutes a logical consequence of Indonesia’s presidential system, under which the President is constitutionally prohibited from dissolving the DPR. Furthermore, the immunity granted under Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) does not contradict the principle of equality before the law, as such immunity is not absolute, remains subject to good faith, and does not preclude legal or ethical accountability for actions taken outside constitutional authority.

Immunity Clause in The 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia Baharuddin Riqiey; Vieta Imelda Cornelis; Duke Arie Widagdo; Rizky Bangun Wibisono
APHTN-HAN Vol 5 No 1 (2026): JAPHTN-HAN, January 2026
Publisher : Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Administrasi Negara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55292/japhtnhan.v5i1.204

Indonesia is a country with a written constitution that contains various substantive provisions governing state structure, the distribution of power, human rights, and limitations on authority. Among these provisions are norms that grant immunity to certain state institutions, commonly referred to as immunity clauses. In the Indonesian constitutional context, immunity clauses are reflected in Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. These provisions grant immunity to the House of Representatives (DPR), both institutionally and individually to its members. This raises an important constitutional question as to whether the existence of such immunity clauses is compatible with the principle of equality before the law. This study employs doctrinal legal research using statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches. The findings demonstrate that Article 7C constitutes a logical consequence of Indonesia’s presidential system, under which the President is constitutionally prohibited from dissolving the DPR. Furthermore, the immunity granted under Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) does not contradict the principle of equality before the law, as such immunity is not absolute, remains subject to good faith, and does not preclude legal or ethical accountability for actions taken outside constitutional authority.

Tanggung Jawab Pemerintah Kota Surabaya dalam Penanganan Stunting Berdasarkan Peraturan Walikota Nomor 79 Tahun 2022 Nilam Felin Dwi Putriyono; Vieta Imelda Cornelis; Nur Handayati; Sri Astutik; Andik Mannulusi
Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Hukum & Politik Vol 4 No 2 (2026): 2026
Publisher : Yayasan pendidikan dzurriyatul Quran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61104/alz.v4i2.4913

Stunting merupakan permasalahan gizi kronis yang berdampak pada kualitas sumber daya manusia dan menjadi tanggung jawab konstitusional pemerintah dalam menjamin hak anak atas kesehatan. Pemerintah Kota Surabaya menerbitkan Peraturan Wali Kota Nomor 79 Tahun 2022 sebagai dasar hukum percepatan penurunan stunting di daerah. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pengaturan percepatan penurunan stunting di Kota Surabaya serta mengkaji bentuk pertanggungjawaban administratif pemerintah daerah dalam pelaksanaannya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Peraturan Wali Kota Nomor 79 Tahun 2022 mengatur pembentukan Tim Percepatan Penurunan Stunting (TPPS), pembagian kewenangan antar perangkat daerah, serta mekanisme koordinasi, pengawasan, dan evaluasi kebijakan. Kewenangan pemerintah daerah dalam pelaksanaan kebijakan bersumber dari atribusi, delegasi, dan mandat yang berimplikasi pada perbedaan pertanggungjawaban administratif. Apabila terjadi kelalaian dalam pelaksanaan program, maka pertanggungjawaban administratif dapat dikenakan sesuai Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan dan prinsip Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik (AUPB). Dengan demikian, efektivitas kebijakan sangat ditentukan oleh konsistensi pelaksanaan dan akuntabilitas pemerintah daerah dalam menjamin pemenuhan hak anak atas gizi dan kesehatan.

The Impact of the KPK Law Revision on Prosecutorial Authority Moch Ridwan Affandi; Siti Marwiyah; Vieta Imelda Cornelis
YURISDIKSI : Jurnal Wacana Hukum dan Sains Vol. 21 No. 4 (2026): March In Progress
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Merdeka University Surabaya, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55173/yurisdiksi.v21i4.350

Corruption is an extraordinary crime that has far-reaching impacts on state finances, the legal system, and public trust. In combating corruption, the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/KPK) and the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Kejaksaan) play strategic roles, particularly in the prosecution of corruption cases. However, the amendment of Law Number 30 of 2002 into Law Number 19 of 2019 on the Corruption Eradication Commission has brought significant changes to the institutional position and authority of the KPK, affecting its relationship with the Prosecutor’s Office. This study aims to analyze the policies of the KPK and the Prosecutor’s Office in regulating prosecutorial authority and to examine the implications of the amendment to the KPK Law for the effectiveness of corruption law enforcement in Indonesia. This research employs an empirical legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and empirical approaches through interviews, observation, and literature review. The findings indicate that the amendment to the KPK Law has strengthened coordination and oversight mechanisms, but at the same time has posed challenges to the independence and speed of prosecution. Therefore, the effectiveness of corruption eradication after the amendment largely depends on strengthening institutional synergy, clarifying the division of authority, and ensuring consistency in prosecutorial policies between the KPK and the Prosecutor’s Office.

Title

Found 14 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 14 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 14 Documents
Search