Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Dewasa ini masyarakat menaruh perhatian yang lebih kepada kebijakan dan tingkah laku pejabat publik terlebih dalam masalah korupsi, kolusi dan nepotisme (KKN). Notaris sebagai pejabat publik tentunya tidak lepas dari perhatian masyarakat dalam hal permasalahan KKN. Pada saat ini terdapat beberapa kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Indonesia yang dianggap melibatkan Notaris. Hal tersebut menyebabkan proses kriminalisasi terhadap profesi Notaris tersebut. Proses Kriminalisasi terhadap Notaris itu sendiri pastinya dianggap sangat merugikan Notaris bila ia telah menjalankan jabatannya dengan sangat berhati-hati dan sesuai dengan ketentuan UUJN dan Kode Etik Notaris.Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti apakah penentuan tarif pengurusan akta oleh notaris dalam kasus ini telah sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi notaris yang menjalankan jabatannya terhadap suatu kasus tindak pidana korupsi.Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode pendekatan yuridis normative dan penarikan kesimpulannya bersifat deskriptid analitis. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah penentuan tarif yang dilakukan oleh Notaris dalam kasus ini tidak sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan tidak terdapat suatu perlindungan hukum yang diatur khusus bagi notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya.

---

Today people pay more attention to the policy and behavior of public officials especially on the issue of corruption, collusion and nepotism. Notaries as public officials must not be separated from the public's attention in terms of corruption problems. At the moment there are several cases of Corruption in Indonesia were considered to involve a Notary. This led to the criminalization of the Notary profession. The criminalization of the Notary process itself must be considered very detrimental to the Notary when he has run his position very carefully and in accordance with the provisions of the Code UUJN and Notary.This study aimed to examine whether the determination of the maintenance rates by a notary deed in this case in accordance with the legislation in force and how the legal protection for a notary who runs the office for a case of corruption.The method used in this research is a normative juridical approach and withdrawal are descriptive analytical conclusions. The conclusion from this study is the determination of tariffs performed by a Notary in this case is not in accordance with the legislation in force and there is a special set of legal protection for a notary in the running position."

"Skripsi ini membahas perlindungan hukum bagi whistleblower tindak pidana korupsi dalam perundang-undangan di Indonesia dan praktik perlindungan hukum bagi whistleblower tindak pidana korupsi atas risiko kriminalisasi balik dalam beberapa perkara di Indonesia dengan studi kasus yakni Nurhayati dan Roni Wijaya. Penulisan skripsi ini dengan metode yuridis normative dengan bentuk deskriptif analitis. Dilatarbelakangi dengan permasalahan korupsi yang terus menjadi permasalahan di masyarakat. Dalam melakukan pengungkapan atas tindak pidana korupsi terdapat beberapa cara untuk mengungkapkannya, salah satunya dengan sebagai Whistleblower. Pasal 33 UNCAC mengatur bahwa negara memiliki kewajiban untuk mempertimbangkan perlindungan bagi whistleblower kedalam sistem hukum nasional negaranya. Indonesia mengatur perlindungan saksi dan korban dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 tetapi tidak memberikan perlindungan hukum yang kuat bagi Whistleblower. Terbitnya SEMA 4/11 yang diharapkan dapat mengatur Whistleblower, ternyata tidak memiliki nilai tambah mengenai perlindungan bagi Whistleblower. Perlindungan bagi Whistleblower disamakan dengan perlindungan bagi pelapor umumnya. Penggunaan istilah Whistleblower pun masih berbeda dalam setiap kasusnya yang mendorong kepada bentuk perlindungan kepada Whistleblower yang belum jelas. Padahal Whistleblower menghadapi banyak risiko yang dikenakan terhadap dirinya. Risiko yang terbesar adalah adanya kriminalisasi balik berupa dilaporkannya kembali atas tindak pidana lainnya terhadap dirinya. Ketiadaan perlindungan hukum yang khusus terhadap whistleblower dari risiko terhadap kriminalisasi balik akan mengurangi potensi publik untuk menjadi whistleblower. Perlindungan paling minim dari risiko kriminalisasi balik yang dapat terjadi bagi whistleblower yang tertera di Pasal 10 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 serta pada poin 8b SEMA Nomor 4 Tahun 2011 dalam praktiknya tidak dilaksanakan sesuai dengan rumusan. Padahal peran Whistleblower merupakan peran penting untuk mengawali pengungkapan atas kasus korupsi yang membawa pada kerugian negara. Diperlukannya perlindungan yang lebih bagi seorang whistleblower dengan diatur lebih lanjut dalam penguatan ketentuan mengenai perlindungan khusus bagi whistleblower terutama terhadap risiko kriminalisasi balik dalam bentuk ketentuan perundang-undangan.

---

This thesis will examine legal protection towards whistleblowers on corruption in Indonesia domestic law and the application of legal protection towards whistleblowers in corruption in the risks of reverse-criminalization in several cases in Indonesia with a case study of Nurhayati and Roni Wijaya. The method used in this thesis is a normative juridical approach with a specification in the form of descriptive analysis. Corruption, which has become an endless issue, happens to be one of the backgrounds of this thesis. There are numerous kinds of effective endeavours in order to disclose the corruption and one of those is to become a whistleblower. Article 33 of UNCAC regulates that each state party shall contemplate the protection of whistleblowers in their domestic law. In Indonesia, witness and victim protection is regulated in Act No. 13 of 2006 yet it is not powerful enough to give a legal protection towards the whistleblower. The publication of Supreme Court Circular of The Republic of Indonesia number 4 of 2011 which expected to be able to regulate whistleblowers, failed to give more value in protecting the whistleblower. It turns out that the protection of the whistleblower is being generalized with the protection of the regular informant. The use of the word “whistleblower” is still not consistent in each case. Thus, the protection of whistleblowers remains unclear. Moreover, the risks faced by the whistleblower are countless. The massive risk that could occur is reverse-criminalization such as being reported for another criminal offense towards the whistleblower. The absence of special legal protection towards whistleblowers and moreover about the protection from the risks of reverse-criminalization, with no hesitation will reduce the public potency to become the whistleblower. The slight protection from the risks of reverse-criminalization that could occur to the whistleblower is regulated in Article 10 Section (1) Act No.13 of 2006 and written in 8b point of Supreme Court Circular of The Republic of Indonesia number 4 of 2011. But it has not applied yet as it’s expected to be. Whereas, the role of whistleblower is essential to begin the disclosure of the corruption which is causing disservice to the country. An advance protection towards whistleblower is needed to be regulated any further in the regulation reinforcement in the form of statutory provisions as a special protection towards whistleblower especially in the risk of reverse criminalization."

"Dimasa ini kebutuhan masyarakat akan alat bukti semakin meningkat guna dapat menjamin kepastian hukum dalam setiap perbuatan. Alat bukti yang memiliki kekuatan hukum pembuktian yang sempurna adalah alat bukti yang otentik, dimana alat bukti tersebut diatur dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata dan Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris diberikan wewenang kepada notaris sebagai pejabat umum untuk membuatnya. Namun seiring perkembangan zaman, tidak jarang dijumpai kasus yang melibatkan notaris. Oleh karena itu penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian secara yuridis normatif, yakni penelitian hukum yang meletakkan hukum sebagai sebuah bangunan sistem norma. Guna melindungi profesi notaris dari tindakan kriminalisasi yang melibatkan notaris, maka atas kewenangan yang diberikan oleh undang-undang, maka menteri hukum dan hak asasi manusia membentuk majelis kehormatan pusat dan majelis kehormatan wilayah sebagai lembaga yang melindungi notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya.

---

In this time, people is increasing evidence in order to guarantee legal certainty in every deeds. Evidence which have the force as perfect proof is authentic evidence, which is evidence was base from Regulation of Civil Law and Notary Regulation was given an authority to notary as a public official to make it. But over time, it is not rare cases anymore that involving a notary. Therefore this research using a research method in normative juridical, namely legal research that put the law as a system of norms. In order to protect the profession notary from criminalization of actions involving a notary, then base on authority that given by law, Minister of Law and Human Rights form a Board of Honor Notary In Region as the intitusion that protects Notary in running their function."

"Notaris adalah pejabat umum yang berwenang untuk membuat akta otentik, sejauh pembuatan akta otentik tertentu tidak dikhususkan bagi pejabat umum lainnya. Akta dapat dibedakan menjadi 2 jenis yaitu akta otentik dan akta dibawah tangan, akta otentik ialah akta yang dibuat oleh pejabat yang berwenang dengan bentuk yang telah ditentukan oleh undang-undang dan mempunyai kekuatan pembuktian yang sempurna, sedangkan akta dibawah tangan adalah akta yang dibuat tidak dihadapan pejabat yang berwenang dan bentuk serta isinya sesuai dengan kehendak para pihak yang membuatnya. Pada prakteknya akta dibawah tangan yang telah ditandatangai oleh para pihak dapat didaftarkan waarmerking di kantor notaris namun ada juga akta dibawah tangan yang ditandatagani oleh oleh para pihak dihadapan notaris yang tanggal pembuatannya sama dengan tanggal pada saat menghadap dihadapan notaris hal ini yang disebut legalisasi. Masyarakat masih kurang menyadari pentingnya dokumen sebagai alat bukti sehingga perjanjian diantara para pihak cukup dengan rasa saling percaya. Hal ini akan menimbulkan permasalah dikemudian hari apabila para pihak tidak mengakui isi dari perjanjian yang telah dibuat. Dalam hal ini diperlukan perlindungan hukum terhadap notaris dalam hal legalisasi dan waarmerking dan bagaimana pula legalisasi dan waarmerking menjadi alat bukti bagi para pihak yang membuatnya. Maka simpulan dari hal ini notaris apabila menerima dokumen untuk dilegalisasi dan waarmerking harus lebih cermat dan berhati ndash;hati dengan cara mencocokkan identitas para pihak serta membacakan isi dari perjanjian tersebut kepada para pihak, selain itu notaris haru juga memberikan penyuluhan hukum kepada para pihak agar lebih paham mengenai legalisasi dan waarmerking beserta akibat hukumnya. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan sumber data sekunder berupa undang-undang, Buku dan tesis.

---

Notary is a public official authorized to make an authentic deed, as far as the manufacture of certain authentic deed is not reserved for other public officials. Deed can be divided into two types, namely the authentic act and deed under hand, authentic deed is a deed made by the competent authority with the form required by law and has the strength of evidence was perfect, while the deed under the hand is a deed made not before competent authorities and the form and content in accordance with the will of the parties who made it. In practice the deed under the hand that has been signed by the parties can be registered waarmerking at the notary 39 s office, but there is also a deed under hand ditandatagani by the parties before a notary that the date of manufacture of the date when facing the front of the notary this thing called legalization. People are still unaware of the importance of the document as evidence that the agreement between the parties simply by mutual trust. This will cause problems in the future if the parties did not recognize the contents of the agreement have been made. In this case the necessary legal protection of the notary in the case of legalization and waarmerking and how the legalization and waarmerking be evidence for the parties who made it. So the conclusion of this notary when receiving documents to be legalized and waarmerking should be more careful and cautious by matching the identity of the parties and read out the contents of the agreement to the parties, in addition to the notary emotion also provide legal counseling to the parties for more details about the legalization and waarmerking and their legal consequences. The method used is a normative legal research with secondary data sources in the form of legislation, books and theses."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas perlindungan hukum bagi Notaris ketika terjadi sengketa terkait dokumen yang diwaarmerking olehnya. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana wewenang Notaris terhadap suatu dokumen yang dibuat di bawah tangan dan bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi Notaris apabila terjadi sengketa terkait dokumen yang diwaarmerking. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yang menekankan pada norma-norma hukum dengan menganalisa peraturan perundang-undangan terkait dan pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan Pasal 15 ayat (2) huruf a dan b Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris yang telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 tentang Jabatan Notaris, wewenang Notaris terhadap dokumen atau akta di bawah tangan adalah mengesahkan (legalisasi) dan mendaftarkan (waarmerking) pada buku khusus, serta dapat dilihat masyarakat masih banyak yang kurang mengetahui bedanya kekuatan akta otentik dan akta di bawah tangan, sedangkan perlindungan hukum terhadap Notaris terkait waarmerking tercantum dalam Pasal 15 ayat (2) huruf b, serta Pasal 66 ayat (1) jika ada proses penyidikan. Meski tidak ada pengaturan lebih lanjut dari wewenang Pasal 15 ayat (2) huruf b, dengan sendirinya ketentuan dalam UUJN mengenai wewenang Notaris terkait waarmerking dapat melindungi Notaris ketika terjadi sengketa terkait dokumen yang diwaarmerking olehnya. Karena Notaris tidak menyaksikan peristiwa hukum antara kedua belah pihak sehingga ketika terjadi sengketa tidak dapat disangkutpautkan dengan Notaris selain tanggal pendaftaran. Masyarakat perlu diberi penyuluhan mengenai bedanya akta otentik dan akta di bawah tangan serta sejauh mana keterlibatan Notaris agar tidak merugikan Notaris juga polisi dalam proses penyidikan harus mengacu pula pada Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris.

---

ABSTRACT

The thesis discussed about legal protection for Notary when disputes related registration document. The main issues for this research is how the authority of Notary with private made document and how the legal protection for Notary if there is any disputes related registration document. This research is qualitative study using legal normative method which is focused on regulation analysis and the data collected by literature study. The results of the thesis, based on Article 15 Paragraph (2) Letter a and b Law of Notary?s Occupation Number 30 Year 2004 that has been changed by the Law of Notary?s Occupation Number 2 Year 2014, authority notary for private made documents are to legalize and registry into specific book. Some people also still confused about the different between private made document and authentic document. Legal protection to Notary related registration document listed in article 15 paragraph (2) letter b, and article 66 paragraph (1) if there was a process of investigation. Although there were no further explanation about authority article 15 paragraph (2) letter b, by itself the provisions of Law of Notary?s Occupation about authority Notary related registration document can protect Notary when disputes related document registered for it. Because Notary not witness the legal occasion between the two sides so that when disputes cannot involved a Notary besides registration date. People needs to be informed about the difference an authentic deed certificate and private made deed and how far the involvement of Notary that there is no disadvantage to Notary are also policemen in the process of investigation must refer to Law of Notary?s Occupation."

"Notaris berwenang untuk membuat akta otentik apabila dikehendaki atau diminta oleh pihak yang berkepentingan.Akta yang dibuat Notaris mencakup mengenai semua perbuatan, perjanjian, dan ketetapan yang diharuskan oleh peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Dalam praktik banyak ditemukan, akta notaris dipermasalahkan oleh para pihak atau pihak ketiga lainnya, sering pula notaris ditarik sebagai pihak yang turut serta melakukan atau membantu melakukan suatu tindak pidana, yaitu membuat akta notaris yang dipalsukan. Dalam hal ini notaris secara sengaja/tidak disengaja notaris bersama-sama dengan pihak/ penghadap untuk membuat akta dengan maksud dan tujuan untuk menguntungkan penghadap tertentu saja atau merugikan penghadap yang lain harus dibuktikan di Pengadilan. Jika Seorang Notaris dalam pembuat anak tanya menimbulkan perkara pidana dan memenuhi unsur subyektif dan obyektif Pemalsuan berupa akta otentik yang berkaitan dengan isi dan tanda tangan maka harus mempertanggungjawabkan secara pidana berdasarkan pasal 264 KUHP. Apabila akta tersebut mengandung adanya unsur pemalsuan dalam perkara pidana, dan sesuai dengan Pasal 112 ayat (1) Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Acara Pidana yang mengatur tentang tata cara pemanggilan Notaris, dansesuaidenganPasal 1320 KUH Perdata akta tersebut menjadi batal demi hukum dan menjadi akta di bawah tangan. Jenis penelitian dalam tesis ini adalah Yuridis Normatif yang termasuk tipe penelitian eksplanatoris, data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah data sekunder dan primer. Alat pengumpulan datanya yaitu melalui studi kepustakaan dan peraturan perundang-undangan.

---

Notary authorizes to establish an authentic deed which required by the concerned parties. The deed that has been established by notary contains of all actions, agreements, and determination required by the laws and regulations and/or by the concerned parties.In some cases, a notary, for example, is involved in criminal offense due to his/her involvement in giving false information in the certificate issued. In this case, the notary, together with the parties involved in an agreement, must be responsible for the action before the court if found guilty benefitting from this certificate for a particular party or other parties, either purposely or not. Falsifying the content and signature in the certificates either subjectively or objectively conducted by a notary leads to criminal proceedings ruled in Article 264, paragraph 1, number 1 of Criminal Code, where the notary must be present in this criminal proceeding. Due to such a criminal deed of falsification, the certificate issued is considered void in legal power. This void is caused by the unfulfilled requirement of either objectivity or subjectivity of agreement as ruled in Article 1320. The type of research on this thesis is a normative study includes the type of explanatory. Data thas used of this research is primary data and secondary data.Data collection tool that is through the study of literature and legislation."

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas kebijakan Aparatur Negara dalam dugaan tindakpidana korupsi. Dengan mengkaji konsep dan kewenangan kebijakan Aparatur Negara dalam Hukum Administrasi dan Hukum pidana. Kebijakan tersebut dinilai dari kedua pendekatan ilmu hukum tersebut untuk menilai kebijakan Aparatur yang bagaimana dapat dikriminalisasikan sebagai tindak pidana korupsi. Dalam tesis ini yang ingin didapatkan oleh penulis adalah (1) Apakah suatu kebijakanAparatur Negara yang melanggar ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan dapat dimungkinkan untuk dikenakan sanksi pidana; (2) Bagaimana terhadap suatu kebijakan Aparatur Negara yang di dalamnya mengandung unsur perbuatan melawan hukum atau unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang dalam tindak pidana korupsi; (3) Apakah terhadap kebijakan yang dikeluarkan oleh Aparatur Negara yang memberikan keuntungan kepada orang lain atau korporasi dan menimbulkan kerugian negara dapat dikenakan tindak pidana korupsi sedangkan dia tidak ada menikmati hasil tindakannya. Penelitian ini mengunakan metode penelitian dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan mengunakan data sekunder seperti dari buku-buku dan peraturan perundang-undangan yang terkait dengan tindak pidana korupsi, kerugian negara, penyalahgunaan wewenag dan literatur-literatur terkait lainnya. Kebijakan Aparatur Negara harus berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan. Seorang pejabat dilarang melakukan penyalahgunaan wewenang yang melanggar ketentuan perundang-undangan. Namun disisi lain pejabat juga diberikan hak kebebasan dalam mengambil kebijakan untuk kepentingan orang banyak bahkan kalaupun undang-undang tidak mengaturnya dapat diterapkan berdasarkan AAUPB. Namun apabila kebijakan tersebut ada unsur mens rea (niat jahat) dan dilakukan dengan sengaja maka kebijakanAparatur Negara tersebut dapat diminta pertanggungjawab pribadi bukan jabatan atas perbuatannya tersebut. Kalau perbuatan itu tidak ada unsur mens rea maka masuk kedalam ranah hukum administrasi atau hukum perdata. Pada saat ini kebijakan Aparatur Negara telah masuk dalam kategori kriminalisasi. Hal ini terjadi karena adanya kesalahan dalam pemahaman dimana kerugian negara ditempat sebagai bukti utama telah terjadi korupsi atas perbuatannya yangmelawan hukum atau menyalahgunakan wewenang tanpa diikuti adanya unsur koruptif. Padahal dalam banyak kasus kerugian negara ini terjadi karena adanya kesalahan administratif atau kecurangan dari pihak pemenang tender yang memanipulasi barang dan data sehingga tidak sesuai spesifikasi yang mana dokumen tersebut dipalsukan dan dibuat seolah-olah sah dan legal. Oleh karenanya, dengan lahirnya Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Negara diharapkan dapat memberikan perlindungan akan kriminalisasi terhadap putusan dan/atau tindakan Aparatur Negara yang didalamnya tidak ada unsur koruptifnya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. To examines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus in Administrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from two approach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the author are (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of the legislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the State Apparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse of power in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits to another person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get to enjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approach by using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books and legislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other related literature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor in corruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. A government official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right of freedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet set such, the government official can make policy based on the Good Governance Principles. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and there is deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subject to responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policy of the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization in corruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses in place as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct against the law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by the corrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication of Law No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to the criminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which there is no element of corruptive;This thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. Toexamines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus inAdministrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from twoapproach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the authorare (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of thelegislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the StateApparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse ofpower in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits toanother person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get toenjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approachby using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books andlegislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other relatedliterature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor incorruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. Agovernment official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right offreedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet setsuch, the government official can make policy based on the Good GovernancePrinciples. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and thereis deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subjectto responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policyof the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization incorruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses inplace as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct againstthe law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by thecorrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication ofLaw No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to thecriminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which thereis no element of corruptive;This thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. Toexamines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus inAdministrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from twoapproach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the authorare (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of thelegislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the StateApparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse ofpower in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits toanother person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get toenjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approachby using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books andlegislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other relatedliterature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor incorruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. Agovernment official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right offreedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet setsuch, the government official can make policy based on the Good GovernancePrinciples. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and thereis deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subjectto responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policyof the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization incorruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses inplace as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct againstthe law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by thecorrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication ofLaw No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to thecriminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which thereis no element of corruptive, This thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. Toexamines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus inAdministrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from twoapproach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the authorare (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of thelegislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the StateApparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse ofpower in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits toanother person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get toenjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approachby using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books andlegislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other relatedliterature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor incorruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. Agovernment official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right offreedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet setsuch, the government official can make policy based on the Good GovernancePrinciples. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and thereis deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subjectto responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policyof the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization incorruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses inplace as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct againstthe law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by thecorrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication ofLaw No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to thecriminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which thereis no element of corruptive]"

"ABSTRAKMengetahui pentingnya tugas dan kedudukan Notaris di dalam masyarakat dan kekuatan pembuktian dari akta autentik yang dibuatnya, Jabatan Notaris merupakan jabatan kepercayaan yang diberikan oleh Undang Undang. Notaris diwajibkan untuk memegang peran selaku pelaksana jabatan kepercayaan dan bertanggungjawab dalam melaksanakan kepercayaannya tersebut dengan sebaik baiknya dan menjunjung tinggi keluhuran jabatannya khususnya dalam pembuatan akta autentik.

---

ABSTRACTKnowing the importance of the duties and status of the Notary in the community and the strenght of the authentication of the authentic deed he makes, The Notary 39 s position is a position of trust given by the law. Notary is required to hold the role as the executor of the position of trust and responsible in carrying out the trust is as good as and uphold the virtue of his position , especially in making authentic deed."

"ABSTRAKNotaris yang tidak lagi menjalankan jabatannya sebagai pejabat umum disebut sebagaiWerda Notaris. Dalam praktek, Werda Notaris dapat dituntut atas akta yang pernahdibuatnya selama ia masih menjabat sebagai Notaris. Tuntutan yang dilakukanterhadap Werda Notaris terkait akta yang dibuatnya selama masih menjabat sebagaipejabat umum dapat dikaitkan dengan ketentuan daluwarsa dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata maupun ketentuan tentang daluwarsa dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana bentukperlindungan hukum terhadap Werda Notaris. Penulisan ini merupakan penelitianyang bersifat yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian terhadap hukum yang ada di dalamperaturan perundang-undangan yang ada di Indonesia sedangkan kesimpulan ditariksecara deskriptif analitis sehingga diperoleh data yang akurat untuk menjawabpermasalahan mengenai perlindungan hukum terhadap Werda Notaris.

---

ABSTRACTNotary who no longer running position as a public official called Retired Notary. Inpractice, Retired Notary shall be prosecuted for any deeds she/he had made whileshe/he was still in service. Such claims addressed to Retired Notary shall be related tothe expiration provisions of the Civil Code Law and/or Criminal Justice Act. Thiswriting is to determine how the legal protection against Retired Notary. This writing isa normative juridical research one which is a study of the existing laws in thelegislation in Indonesia, while descriptively analytical conclusions drawn in order toobtain accurate data to address issues regarding the legal protection of Retired Notary."

"Perlindungan hukum bagi 'justice collaborator' secara spesifik berbeda dengan perlindungan tehadap saksi, karena seorang 'justice collaborator' merupakan orang yang melakukan tindak pidana korupsi tetapi menjadi saksi untuk memberikan kesaksian dalam membantu mengungkap tindak pidana. Namun masih terdapat perbedaan penafsiran dan aturan yang dipedomani aparat penegak hukum dalam menetapkan status 'justice collaborator. 'Penelitian ini menggunakan analisis yuridis normatif serta analisis beberapa kasus 'justice collaborator' di Indonesia, analisis kasus ini menjadi perlu, guna mengetahui penerapan 'status justice collaborator' oleh aparat penegak hukum dan analisis tersebut tentu dapat menjadi bahan masukan dalam politik hukum pidana Indonesia.

---

Legal protection for justice collaborators is specifically different from protection for witnesses, because a justice collaborator is a person who commits a criminal act of corruption but is a witness to give testimony in helping to uncover criminal acts. However, there are still differences in interpretation and rules that are followed by law enforcement officials in determining the status of justice collaborator. This study uses normative juridical analysis and analysis of several cases of justice collaborator in Indonesia, this case analysis becomes necessary, in order to determine the application of the status of justice collaborator by law enforcement officials and the analysis can certainly be input as recommendation in Indonesian criminal law policy."