The Arrangement of the Abuse of Authority in Corruption Offence

after the Enactment of the Law on Government Administration from

Political Law Perspective in Indonesia

Riswan Erfa

Doctor of Law Program, Brawijaya University, MT Haryono Street, Malang, East Java, Indonesia

Funded by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP)

Keywords: Corruption, Abuse of Competence, Abuse of Authority, Legal Politics

Abstract: The Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Corruption Eradication in conjunction with Law Number 20 of

2001 concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption in Article 3

formulates that Corruption Eradication is relating to abuse of authority. The definition of an element of

abuse of authority in that Article is not contained in the explanation chapter. The meaning of the element of

abuse of authority actually refers to the concept of abuse of competence in the realm of administrative law.

After the promulgation of Law Number 30 the Year 2014 concerning Government Administration, there are

provisions which regulate the abuse of competence which causes state financial losses. The perspective of

corruption has also changed; the abuse of competence which is detrimental to the country's finances, is

sufficiently resolved at the administrative stage. While the provisions in the Law on the Corruption

Eradication, there are provisions that formulate restitution of state financial losses due to criminal acts of

abuse of authority which do not eliminate the imprisonment of perpetrators. The difference concept between

the abuse of competence and abuse of authority as well as changing the perspectives on the regulation of

criminal law of corruption that intersects with the abuse of authority can be seen and examined from the

political law perspective in Indonesia. It is aimed to see the direction of legal policy in Indonesia. There are

at least three things that can be explained from the political law perspective in Indonesia. First, the

regulation related to the abuse of competence regulated in the provisions of laws and regulations concerning

government administration is considered not in line with the regulation of abuse of authority in corruption

law. Second, it is necessary to establish regulation on the abuse of authority in criminal law which does not

only have a good effect on the enforcement of suspected corruption but also have a good effect on the

prevention of corruption through government administrative arrangements. Third, it is necessary to present

regulations regarding the misuse of competence in the administration of the government law while still

being able to ensure that the enforcement of suspected corruption can go in line according to the spirit of the

provisions in the law on corruption eradication.

1 INTRODUCTION

The abuse of authority in corruption offense is

regulated in Article 3 of Law Number 31 the Year

1999 concerning Corruption Eradication in

conjunction with Law Number 20 the Year 2001

concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 the Year

1999 concerning Corruption Eradication which

states that:

“Every person who aims to benefit himself or

another person or a corporation, misusing the

authority, opportunity, or means available to him

because of a position or position in him because of a

position or position that can harm state finances or

the country's economy, be punished by

imprisonment lifetime or imprisonment for at least 1

(one) year and no later than 20 (twenty) years and or

a fine of at least Rp. 50,000,000 (fifty million

rupiah) and at most Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 (one

billion rupiah) .

The word "can" in the formulation of article 3 of

Law Number 31 Year 1999 concerning Eradication

of Corruption Offence jo Law Number 20 Year 2001

concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999

concerning Eradication of Corruption Offence stated

to have no binding legal force after the decision of

Erfa, R.

The Arrangement of the Abuse of Authority in Corruption Offence after the Enactment of the Law on Government Administration from Political Law Perspective in Indonesia.

DOI: 10.5220/0009401101310137

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity (ICOACI 2019), pages 131-137

ISBN: 978-989-758-461-9

131

the Constitutional Court Number 25 / PUU-XIV /

2016.

The enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014

concerning Government Administration also

changed the perspective of understanding the

regulation of corruption in the Corruption Act.

Changes in perceptions of understanding regarding

the regulation of offenses for corruption in relation

to abuse of authority after the enactment of law

Number 30 the Year 2014 concerning Government

Administration can be seen from the Constitutional

Court Decision Number 25 / PUU-XIV / 2016.

The Constitutional Court's decision in one of its

legal considerations stated that after the enactment

of Law Number 30 Year 2014 concerning

Government Administration which contained

provisions including: Article 20 paragraph (4)

concerning the return of state financial losses due to

administrative errors that occurred due to an element

of abuse of competence by officials government;

Article 21 concerning the absolute competency of

the state administrative court to examine and or not

suspect the abuse of competence carried out by

government officials; Article 70 paragraph (3)

concerning the return of money to the state treasury

because of a decision that results in payments from

state funds declared invalid; and Article 80

paragraph (4) concerning the administration of

administrative sanctions to government officials for

violating provisions that cause state losses.

The problem of the perspective changes in the

regulation of corruption in Law Number 31 of 1999

concerning the Corruption Eradication s in

conjunction with Law Number 20 the Year 2001

concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999

concerning Corruption Eradication can cause legal

problems. For example, in terms of regulating abuse

of competence that harms state finances and is

included in corruption. By-Law Number 30 of 2014

concerning Government Administration, abuse of

authority cannot be immediately investigated, but

internal supervision must be carried out first by the

Government Internal Apparatus.

The results of supervision of abuse of

competence which shows that abuse of competence

causes state losses, then a loss of state financial

losses must be carried out no later than 10 (ten) days

after the decision is made and the results of

supervision are published. However, government

administration law does not mention the strict

consequences of not returning state financial losses

or restoring state finances. So that it can be

understood that if the state financial losses have

been returned, there will be no loss of state finances.

The promulgation of Law Number 30 the Year

2014 concerning Government Administration

increased the number of laws and regulations that

contradicted with each other. This law stipulates that

those who have the right to supervise the occurrence

of abuse of competence consisting of exceeding

authority, confusing competency, and acting

arbitrarily are the Internal Oversight Offices of the

agency concerned. After conducting the inspection,

the internal supervisor will make a conclusion in the

form of "no error" or "there are administrative errors

or even" there are administrative errors that cause

state financial losses." Especially within a maximum

of 10 days, the state's losses are expected to be

returned by government agencies or officials who do

it (Krisna Harahap, 2005).

Meanwhile, Law Number 31 the Year 1999

concerning Corruption Eradication jo Law Number

20 the Year 2001 concerning Amendment to Law

Number 31 the Year 1999 concerning Corruption

Eradication states that the return of state financial

loss does not eliminate the participation of the

perpetrators as stipulated in Article 2 and Article 3

of the law on combating crime. If we look at Article

3 related to the regulation of Corruption Eradication

because of the abuse of authority that causes state

losses, it can still be convicted even though it has

returned losses to state finances.

This provision is contrary to the provisions of

Law Number 30 the Year 2014 concerning

Government Administration. This is because the

oversight of abuse of competence is on the internal

supervisor, then if the results of the supervision

show that there is an abuse of competence that

causes state losses and the state losses are returned,

there is no more state loss. Resolving the problem of

abuse of competence is sufficiently resolved at the

administrative level. Such provisions are feared to

be a tool for officials who, misusing their authority

to avoid violating corruption.

Regarding state financial losses, there are

striking provisions between the two laws. In Article

4 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning

Eradication of Corruption Offence in conjunction

with Law Number 20 the Year 2001 concerning

Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning

Eradication of Corruption Offence, the return of

losses on state finances does not eliminate the

punishment of perpetrators. That is, the perpetrators

remain punished, both imprisonment, criminal

penalties, and additional criminal penalties.

Conversely, in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning

Government Administration, within a period of 10

days, the perpetrator can recover the country's

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

132

financial losses. From the beginning, his actions

despite detrimental to the country's finances were

considered not criminal acts. Therefore, the

perpetrator does not need to be afraid of being

punished for any amount of state financial losses

arising from his actions because the only ones

waiting are administrative penalties. This provision

is further clarified by the absence of further

provisions in Law No. 30 of 2014 in the event that

the State's loss is not returned even though ten days

have passed.

Provisions contained in the law on the

Corruption Eradication formulate various

qualifications for corruption that can be subject to

criminal sanctions. These provisions have at least 8

(eight) groups of 30 (thirty) types/forms of criminal

acts, ranging from state financial losses, bribery to

bribes, embezzlement in office, extortion, fraudulent

acts, conflicts of interest in procurement and

gratification.

2 DISCUSSION

2.1 The Regulation of Corruption

Offence of Abuse of Authority after

the Enactment of the Law on

Government Administration

Regulations concerning corruption that mention the

term corruption as a juridical term in the provisions

of Indonesian laws and regulations can be traced for

the first time in Military Regulations Number PRT /

PM / 06/1957. This regulation applies to the Army's

territory (Evi Hartanti, 2012). After experiencing

various developments in legal issues, the regulation

of corruption has continued to change until finally,

we can look at Law Number 20 the Year 2001

concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999

concerning Eradication of Corruption.

After the existence of Military Regulations

Number PRT / PM / 06/1957, which contained the

term corruption, the regulation of corruption acts

continued to undergo renewal. We can arrange this

starting with the establishment of Law Number 24 /

Prp / Year 1960 concerning Investigation,

Prosecution, and Corruption Criminal Investigation

as Amendments to Government Regulations in Lieu

of Law Number 24 of 1960 which was later replaced

in 1971 due to the enactment of the Law Number 3

of 1971 concerning Eradication of Corruption

Offence. During the two decades, the law was

deemed no longer relevant and replaced with Law

Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of

Corruption Offence which was later added and

amended by Law Number 20 the Year 2001

concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999

concerning Eradication of Corruption Offence.

Provisions contained in the law on the

Corruption Eradication formulate various

qualifications for corruption that can be subject to

criminal sanctions. These provisions have at least 8

(eight) groups of 30 (thirty) types/forms of criminal

acts, ranging from state financial losses, bribery,

bribes in office, extortion, fraudulent acts, conflicts

of interest in procurement and gratification. In

addition to the eight groups of types/forms of

criminal acts, there are still other types of criminal

acts related to the crime of corruption, namely:

Obstructing the process of examining corruption

cases; Not giving information or giving incorrect

information; Banks that do not provide their suspect

accounts; Witness or expert who does not provide

false information or information; The person holding

the secret of position does not provide information

or give false information; and witnesses who opened

the informant identity (Corruption Eradication

Commission

, 2006).

Legal arrangements regarding the corruption

eradication law do not only regulate the matters

relating to material criminal law, but also formal

criminal law. We can see this from the establishment

of Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the

Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and Law

Number 46 of 2009 concerning the Corruption

Court. The two laws that regulate formal criminal

law efforts to eradicate Corruption Eradication can

be observed as a form of serious efforts from the

state to eradicate corruption that is also considered

an extraordinary crime.

The establishment of Law Number 30 of 2002

concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission

was established to increase efforts to eradicate

professional, intensive, and sustainable corruption.

Also, in response to the non-functioning of state

institutions that deal with corruption cases

effectively and efficiently. Besides that, it is also the

implementation of the mandate of Article 43 of Law

Number 31 the Year 1999 concerning Eradication of

Corruption Offence in conjunction with Law

Number 20 the Year 2001 concerning Amendment

to Law Number 31 the Year 1999 concerning

Eradication of Corruption Offence. This law is a

formal provision that regulates the authorities of the

Corruption Eradication Commission in carrying out

its duties and functions in the prevention and

The Arrangement of the Abuse of Authority in Corruption Offence after the Enactment of the Law on Government Administration from

Political Law Perspective in Indonesia

133

repression of the eradication of Corruption

Eradication.

Considering the establishment of Law No. 46 of

2009 concerning the Corruption Criminal Court

states that the establishment of this law is intended

to strengthen efforts to eradicate corruption that are

considered to have caused various kinds of problems

in many areas of the life of the nation and state.

Aside from being an embodiment of Article 53 of

Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption

Eradication Commission. So it can be understood

that the provisions set out in this law constitute

formal provisions to try defendants for Corruption

Eradication in front of the court who specifically

examine and try cases of Corruption Eradication. As

an example of the KPK in total in its efforts to

prosecute in 2016 the KPK conducted 96

investigative activities, 99 investigations, and 77

prosecution activities, both new cases and the

remainder of case handling in the previous year. In

addition, the execution of 81 court decisions that

have permanent legal force. More than 497.6 billion

rupiahs have been included in the state treasury in

the form of PNBP from handling cases of corruption

(Corruption Eradication Commission, 2016).



The material and formal criminal law

arrangements related to efforts to eradicate

corruption have been established, but the Indonesian

corruption perception index numbers cannot be

categorized as good. The results of a study

conducted by Transparency International (TI), an

institution that concentrated on studies on corruption

eradication released the results of corruption

perception indexes in many countries. At least the

corruption perception index data released by IT in

the last three years can be the basis to confirm that

efforts to prevent and eradicate corruption are not

quite good. In 2016, TI released the score of

Indonesia's corruption perceptions index around 37

and ranked 90th out of 176 countries. In 2017, the

Indonesian corruption perception index score is still

at 37, but the ranking has dropped to 96 out of 180

countries. Furthermore, in 2018, Indonesia's

corruption perception index score rose by one point

to 38 and put Indonesia in 89th position.

Indonesia's corruption perception index number

has indeed gone up, but the increase can be

categorized as not optimal because it only goes up

by one number. The low score on Indonesia's

corruption perception index is a general picture of

efforts to prevent and control corruption that has not

been maximized. Although law enforcement

institutions have worked and tried their best, various

cases of Corruption Eradication still occur, so the

formulation of articles related to corruption must be

regulated well.

The element of the abuse of authority in the

article is not explained in detail in the explanation of

the law. But if we trace it from one of the court

decisions. In the Decision of the Supreme Court

Number 977 K / Pid / 2004, it can be observed that

the consideration of judges who argued that the

notion of "abusing authority" was essentially not

found in criminal law. Therefore criminal law can

use the same meanings and words contained or

originating from other legal branches.

While the Attorney General's Legal Information

Center (Puspenkum of Attorney General's, 2018)

suggested the definition of the element of abusing

authority in Article 3 of Law Number 31 Year 1999

concerning Corruption Eradication s in conjunction

with Law Number 20 Year 2001 concerning

Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning

Eradication Corruption Offence, namely: violating

written rules that form the basis of authority; has a

purpose that deviates even though the deed is in

accordance with the regulations; and potentially

harm the country.

After the enactment of Law Number 30 the Year

2014 concerning Government Administration, the

meaning of the regulation regarding abuse of

authority has changed. This law distinguishes the

definition of “authority” and “competence."

Competence is defined as the rights owned by the

Agency and/or Government Officials or other state

administrators to make decisions and/or actions in

the administration of government. Thus, abuse of

competence can be interpreted as an abuse of the

right to make decisions and / or actions in the

administration of government by the Agency or

government officials. The phrase government

administration is not interpreted in detail in this law;

therefore, the meaning will be very broad.

While authority is defined as a government

authority, namely the authority of the Agency and/or

Government Officials or other state administrators to

act in the realm of public law, then the abuse of

authority is the abuse of the authority of the Agency

or government officials or state administrators in

carrying out actions in the public sphere.

If we look at the phrases used in Law Number 31

of 1999 concerning Corruption Eradication in

conjunction with Law Number 20 the Year 2001

concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999

concerning Corruption Eradication is the phrase

"abuse of authority" not " abuse of competence." But

in the implementation to show abuse of authority is

also understood as an abuse of competence.

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

134

Absorption of the notion of "abuse of

competence" into the notion of "abuse of authority"

in addition to the academic domain, is also carried

out at a practical level. The practice of criminal

justice, especially the Corruption Court through an

extensive approach (broadly reaching) using the

doctrine of the autonomy of criminal law has used

the notion of "abuse of competence" in State

Administrative Law to explain the element of

"abusing authority" in Corruption. Criminal law has

the autonomy to provide a different understanding

from the understanding contained in other branches

of law, but if the criminal law does not determine

otherwise, the definition contained in other branches

of law is used. We can observe this from the

Tanjung Pinang Court Judge Decision Number: 3 /

Pid.Sus-TPK / 2015 / PN.Tpg, even though law

Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government

Administration has been enacted (Muhammad

Sahlan, 2016). It was pointed out that the abuse of

authority referred to the law on the corruption

eradication had been abolished with the

understanding of abuse of competence in state

administrative law that inspired the notion of abuse

of competence in the government administration

law.

While the provisions regarding abuse of

competence stipulated in the Government

Administration Act regulate the abuse of

competence which causes state losses to be resolved

at the administrative stage. Whereas on the other

hand, the provisions in the Law on the Corruption

Eradication regulates the return of losses on state

finances that do not abolish the perpetrators to be

punished.

2.2 Relations between Law and Politics

Legal studies in the development of current

problems will be very difficult to be released from

other entities outside the law. One other entity that

can be considered as an entity that is outside the

legal entity is legal politics. Satjipto Rahardjo as

quoted by Imam Syaukani and A. Ahsin Thohari

explained,

(..) In the 19th century in Europe and America,

individuals were the center of legal regulation, while

the highly developed legal field was civil law

(rights, contracts, illegal acts) Legal expertise is

related to technical skills or craftsmanship (legal

craftsmanship). People also feel that by treating the

law as above, by considering the law as an

institution and an independent force in society, then

it is a complete attitude that considers everything

can be fulfilled by itself. Law, scientific disciplines,

legal analysis methods, all do not need help and

cooperation with other scientific disciplines

(Syaukani Imam & Thohari A. Ahsin, 2010).

However, the atmosphere immediately changes

soon to be different, when the way of looking at and

working on such a law is faced with changes that

occur in society due to the success of modernization

and industrialization. The individual position now

begins to be rivaled by the appearance of other

subjects, such as community, collectivity, and the

state. The fields which later became more prominent

were public law, administrative law, socio-economic

law. A new understanding emerged which

essentially sued the establishment from the technical

capacity as mentioned above, and replaced it with

"planning," "legal experts as social architects," and

so on. Now the law is no longer seen as an

autonomous and independent matter but is

understood functionally and seen as always being in

an independent relation with other fields in

society(Syaukani Imam & Thohari A. Ahsin, 2010).

The idea conveyed by Satjipto Rahardjo above

illustrates how entities outside the law will greatly

influence the formation of the law even further

affecting the law enforcement process. That thought

can be used as one of the that studies such as legal

politics, would be able to see the extent to which

entities outside the law had an influence in making a

norm or the rule of law.

The theoretical framework that constructs the

notion of legal theory is a non-uniform construction,

and this is based on differences in terms and

interpretations of the terms used. Because of that

many differences can be found from expert opinion.

Therefore, firstly, it is important to see the

construction of the various legal, political terms

from the opinions of several experts both in

etymological perspective and terminological

perspective.

Sri Soemantri as quoted by Imam Syaukani and

Ahsin Thohari in his book The Basics of Political

Law explains;

(…) Etymologically, the term political law is an

Indonesian translation of the Dutch legal term

rechpolietiek, which is a form of two words Recht

and politiek. This term should not be confused with

a term that appears later, polietiekrecht or political

law, which was stated by Hence van Maarseveen

because both have different connotations. The latter

term relates to another term offered by Hence van

Maarseveen to replace the terms of constitutional

law. For this purpose, he wrote an essay entitled

"Politiekrecht, als Opvolger van het

The Arrangement of the Abuse of Authority in Corruption Offence after the Enactment of the Law on Government Administration from

Political Law Perspective in Indonesia

135

Staatrecht"(Syaukani Imam & Thohari A. Ahsin,

2010).

Furthermore, Hans Wehr as quoted by Imam

Syaukani and Ahsin Thohari in his book Basics of

Political Law, also explains that ‘in Indonesian the

word Recht means law. The law itself comes from

the Arabic, hukm (plural words ahkam), which

means a judgment (verdict, decision), provision,

command, government, power (authority),

punishment (sentence ), and others'(Syaukani Imam

& Thohari A. Ahsin, 2010).

As for the Dutch dictionary written by Van des

Tas, the word politiek means beleid. The word

beleid itself in Indonesian means policy. From that

explanation, it can be said that legal politics, in

short, means legal policy. While “policy” in the Big

Indonesian Dictionary means a series of concepts

and principles that form the outline and basis of the

plan for implementing a job, leadership, and how to

act. In other words, political law is a series of

concepts and principles that form the outline and

basis of plans in the implementation of a job,

leadership, and ways of acting in the legal

field(Syaukani Imam & Thohari A. Ahsin, 2010).

Opinions explain the notion of legal politics that

is different from political law because both have

different connotations of meaning, where political

law is closer to the term constitutional law. While

legal politics will tend to the concepts and principles

on the outline or the basis of the plan to form a law.

Mahfud M.D. said that;

(...) By using the basic assumption that law as a

political product, politics will determine the law so

that it puts politics as an independent variable and

the law as a variable is affected. With a more

specific hypothesis statement, it can be stated that

the political configuration of a country will give

birth to certain legal product characteristics in that

country. In countries where the political

configuration is democratic, the legal products are

responsive/populistic, whereas, in countries where

the legal, political configuration is authoritarian, the

legal products are orthodox/conservative/ elitist

(Moh Mahfud MD,2018).

From a number of expert opinions it can be

stated that legal politics is an attempt by the state to

determine the law that will apply or improve the law

that is in effect to answer changes or problems of

society through state institutions to form laws, which

are based on the state basis, and at a certain point

will be influenced by the country's political

configuration.

There are three things that can be raised related

to the legal, political issue of the regulation of abuse

of competence after the enactment of Law Number

30 the Year 2014 concerning Government

Administration. First, regulations relating to abuse

of competence stipulated in the provisions of Laws

concerning Government Administration which are

considered inconsistent with regulating abuse of

authority in Corruption Eradication. Circumstances

that illustrate the irregularities between government

administration laws are considered to be able to

hamper efforts to eradicate corruption, especially

related to abuse of authority. While corruption is an

extraordinary crime which has a wide impact on

many sectors. So, that the existence of provisions

that have not been mutually supportive in efforts to

eradicate corruption will have an impact on the

obstruction of the state's goals, according to

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) throughout 2015

the number of state losses due to corruption was Rp.

1.2 trillion in the first half of 2015. While in the

second semester of 2015 it reached Rp. 1.8 trillion.

So if accumulated, it is estimated that state losses

due to corruption are 3 trillion. ICW, 2015 State

Loss Due to Corruption of 3.1 Trillion (ICW, 2015).

The purpose of the country which has become

the consensus of the people of Indonesia as outlined

in a basic law certainly has strong moral

foundations. For example, the purpose of presenting

general welfare, this goal certainly must be

supported by instruments that can bridge the

effectiveness of achieving this goal. So that if the

regulation regarding eradicating criminal offense is

problematic, then it can also hamper efforts to

achieve state goals.

Second, in order to realize the acceleration of

achieving state goals through criminal law policy in

the field of eradicating corruption offence, it is

necessary to present the regulation of abuse of

authority in criminal offences that not only have a

good effect on the alleged acts of corruption but also

have a good effect on the prevention of corruption

through regulation government administration. Such

efforts can certainly be made if the provisions in

criminal law (the law to eradicate corruption and the

provisions in administrative law (government

administration law) are consistent.

Especially if we understand the basic values that

are the basis of the existence of criminal law such as

Security and order as the direct purpose of criminal

law, which must absolutely be achieved; Community

awareness of the meaning and general nature which

can then be a source of justice, peace, spiritual and

physical welfare, as the ultimate goal of criminal

law; Harmony between physical (birth aspect) and

spirituality (inner aspect) and novelty and

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

136

sustainability must be achieved in the application of

criminal law (Purnadi Purbacaraka & A. Ridwan

Halim, 1997).

The content of the basic values is spread in

various aspects. Starting the content in the

legislative ratio, the rules of criminal law are

established to a measure of the effectiveness and

efficiency of a rule of criminal law that has been

formulated. The nature of the basic principles of

thought for the formulation of criminal rules

includes: To regulate harmony between personal

interests and public interests. To achieve and realize

the rule of law as far as possible as formulated in the

life of the community, where the law applies through

the application of the relevant criminal law. As the

main test point for the community in general and

legal experts or legislators in particular to measure

the extent to which effectiveness and efficiency are

in criminal law(Purnadi Purbacaraka & A. Ridwan

Halim, 1997). Therefore, regulations that are

deemed to degrade the effectiveness of eradicating

Corruption Eradication can be read as something

that is not in line with the nature of law based on

moral values as well as explanations regarding

natural law.

Third, in order to realize these things, it is

necessary to present a regulation regarding the crime

of abuse of competence in government

administration, which can still ensure that the

prosecution of alleged corruption is in accordance

with the provisions in the law to eradicate

corruption. The presence of such regulation is

potential to save the values of the spirit of

eradicating corruption and the values that support

the achievement of state goals through related

criminal law policies which regulate the abuse of

competence in corruption offense.

3 CONCLUSION

The regulation of abuse of authority because of a

position in the corruption eradication law after the

promulgation of Law number 30 of 2014 concerning

Government Administration in terms of political

politics must be in line with the orientation of

national legal objectives. The regulation shows that

the change of perspective on the eradication of

corruption is still not in line with the nature of the

eradication of corruption. For example, this can be

seen from the existence of conflicts in the norms

between the two laws that make no mutual support

in efforts to eradicate corruption that can have an

impact on the obstruction of the country's goals.

Whereas the purpose of the state can be

understood as a manifestation of the nature of

achieving prosperity and justice based on moral

values. So that Law number 30 of 2014 concerning

Government Administration which formulates the

provisions on the abuse of competence must be able

to strengthen the regulation of abuse of authority in

criminal acts of corruption in Law Number 31 of

1999 concerning Corruption Eradication in

conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001

concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999

concerning Corruption Eradication. For example, the

Law on Government Administration must contain a

clear formulation of the strict consequences in the

criminal sphere for perpetrators who have been

declared to have abused the competence that caused

state losses if they did not recover state financial

losses or restore state finances within a specified

time period.

REFERENCES

. 2006. Corruption Eradication Commission,

Understanding to Eradicate.

Corruption Eradication Commission. 2016. KPK

Achievements and Performance in 2016.

<http://kpk.go.id/id/berita/siaran-pers/3832-capaian-

dan-kinerja-kpk-di-tahun-2016> (Last Visited 27th of

April 2019)

Harahap, Krisna. 2015. Will the Corruption Eradication

Anomaly Apply?

<http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt55029a5

230254/akankah-anomali-pemberantasan-korupsi-

berlalu-broleh--prof-dr-krisna-harahap-sh--mh-> (Last

Visited April 26th, 2019)

Hartanti, Evi. 2012. Corruption Offence. Media : Jakarta

Indonesia Legislation: Law Number 30 the Year 2014

concerning Government Administration

Imam, Syaukani & Thohari A. Ahsin. 2010. Fundamentals

of Political Law. Sinar Grafika: Surabaya.

Moh Mahfud MD. 2018. Politics of Law in Indonesia.

Cempaka : Jakarta

Purbacaraka, Purnadi & A. Ridwan Halim. 1997.

Philosophy of Criminal Law in Questions and

Answers.

Puspenkum of Attorney General's, Role of Government

Employees as Participants in Building a Culture of

National Law

<http://www.kejaksaan.go.id/uplimg/Peran%20PNS%

20dalam%20membangun%20budaya.ppt> (last visited

27th of April 2019)

Sahlan, Muhammad. 2016. ‘Element of Abusing Authority

in Corruption Crime as Absolute Competence of

Administrative Courts’. Law Journal of Ius Quia

Iustum.

The Arrangement of the Abuse of Authority in Corruption Offence after the Enactment of the Law on Government Administration from

Political Law Perspective in Indonesia

137