<![CDATA[Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016 mengkonfirmasi batas pertanggung-jawaban administrasi dan pidana, sebagaimana dimaksud Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan (UUAP) maupun kebijakan legislasi lain. Upaya pemberantasan korupsi dengan pendekatan represif cenderung menafikan sarana hukum administrasi dalam mencegah terjadinya kejahatan tipikor yang sebenarnya dari sudut pandang hukum administrasi merupakan salah satu bentuk maladministrasi. Putusan MK ini perlu ditindaklanjuti dalam kebijakan legislasi ke depan, agar lebih diatur hubungan antara: (1) Harmonisasi pengertian keuangan negara; (2) Harmonisasi antara pengembalian kerugian negara dalam hukum pidana dan hukum administrasi; (2) Harmonisasi Kelembangaan Antara Pengawas Internal dan Eksternal; (3) Sinkronisasi upaya hukum sebagaimana dimaksud pasal 35 PP. No. 48/2016.The Constitutional Court decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016 confirms administrative and criminal responsibility boundary, as defined in Government Administrative Act (UUAP) and other legislation policies. Efforts to eradicate corruption by repressive approach tend to deny the means of administrative law in preventing corruption which is from the point of view of administrative law, corruption is one form of maladministration. This Constitutional Court's decision needs to be followed up by harmonization in the legislation policy in the future concerning (1) Harmonization of state financial defenition; (2) Harmonization between the return of state losses in criminal law and administrative law; (2) Harmonization of between Internal and External Supervisors; (3) Synchronization of legal remedies as referred to Article 35 PP. No. 48/2016.]]>
Copyrights © 2018
