Suchergebnisse

After the stipulation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in the 4th Amendment, the Indonesian state has declared itself to be consistent in implementing the presidential system of government as the basis for the implementation of its government. The presidential system of government or also known as the congressional system is a system of government in a country in the form of a republic in which executive power is elected through general elections and is separated from legislative power. With the complexity of this system, not many countries that implement it fail to pass the test of democratic stability. It can be stated that only the United States of America is capable of becoming the best practice of implementing a successful, effective and efficient presidential system. Therefore, many other countries use the United States as a role model in building an effective and efficient form of presidentialism system as has been done by Indonesia.

The style of building our constitutional legal system today is very varied, it has implications for the shifting functions and rights of the State organs including the State organs of the Republic of Indonesia House of Representatives. To understand the conception of the functions and rights of the organs of the Republic of Indonesia Representative Council (DPR RI), it is seen as two sides of a coin (two sides of one coin). The DPR RI's inquiry right is a supervision that must be carried out on policies implemented by the executive. The KPK is an organ that is within the executive family, because it carries out investigations, investigations and prosecutions of corruption cases, such as those carried out by the Prosecutors' Office and the Police. Thus if the KPK is referred to as part of the judiciary. The task of investigation, investigation and prosecution is the task of the executive, not the legislative and judiciary. In addition, the KPK has been an institution that uses the State budget, so it should be overseen by the DPR. if the DPR cannot exercise the right to question the KPK on the grounds of independence. The reason is, it is not right to refuse the right to question the KPK. With the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) in the main essence of the decision which positions the KPK in institutions that are in the realm of power, the executive for carrying out the task of investigation, investigation and prosecution in corruption, which is actually the same as the authority of the police and prosecutors. The KPK is a state institution that is within the executive power cluster, so the KPK can be the object of using the DPR's questionnaire right as the people's representative who carries out the supervisory function. But the use of the questionnaire right by the DPR cannot be applied in the case that the KPK is carrying out its investigative, investigative and prosecution tasks. This means that the KPK cannot be carried out while the KPK is carrying out its duties. ; The style of building our constitutional legal system today is very varied, it has implications for the shifting functions and rights of the State organs including the State organs of the Republic of Indonesia House of Representatives. To understand the conception of the functions and rights of the organs of the Republic of Indonesia Representative Council (DPR RI), it is seen as two sides of a coin (two sides of one coin). The DPR RI's inquiry right is a supervision that must be carried out on policies implemented by the executive. The KPK is an organ that is within the executive family, because it carries out investigations, investigations and prosecutions of corruption cases, such as those carried out by the Prosecutors' Office and the Police. Thus if the KPK is referred to as part of the judiciary. The task of investigation, investigation and prosecution is the task of the executive, not the legislative and judiciary. In addition, the KPK has been an institution that uses the State budget, so it should be overseen by the DPR. if the DPR cannot exercise the right to question the KPK on the grounds of independence. The reason is, it is not right to refuse the right to question the KPK. With the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) in the main essence of the decision which positions the KPK in institutions that are in the realm of power, the executive for carrying out the task of investigation, investigation and prosecution in corruption, which is actually the same as the authority of the police and prosecutors. The KPK is a state institution that is within the executive power cluster, so the KPK can be the object of using the DPR's questionnaire right as the people's representative who carries out the supervisory function. But the use of the questionnaire right by the DPR cannot be applied in the case that the KPK is carrying out its investigative, investigative and prosecution tasks. This means that the KPK cannot be carried out while the KPK is carrying out its duties.

The execution of the State Administrative Court Decision which has permanent legal force (inkracht van Gewijsde) in the era of autonomy is as wide as possible, and begins with the breakdown of the paradigm of regional autonomy in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 18, Article 18A and Article 18B, the implementation of regional government is based on the principles that become the normative basis. State Administrative Court decisions that cannot be executed have caused pessimism and apathy in society. The problem is that there is no executive power in the Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning the Regulation of State Administration. This condition is an alarming fact that the existence of a State Administrative Court Decision has not been able to bring justice to the public in the administrative sphere of government. The principle of the existence of a State Administrative Court Decision, to place judicial control in the implementation of good governance becomes biased in the Indonesian constitutional system.