Conflict of Law Enforcement by State Institutions over Abuse of Power and Authority: A Case Study of "Former President Director of PT. Pertamina"
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study, wants to analyze the very significant differences in the application of legal considerations on the abuse of power and authority by the former President Director of PT. Pertamina, which caused losses to the state based on legal considerations by the Corruption Court Judge and the Jakarta High Court, decided to imprisonment for 8 years and a fine. However, a cassation decision by the Panel of Judges at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia stated that the defendant was presumed innocent and freed the defendant from the demands of imprisonment and unconditional release. The problem of this research is, Why are there very significant differences in the application of law in the same state institution? The purpose of this study, for Constitutional Law academics can provide a very significant difference study in legal considerations in the Court of Justice in Indonesia. For judges at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia as an introspection in the legal consideration of abuse of power that results in losses to the state. This research approach method was a qualitative method. Creswell defines a qualitative method as a research method that is based on the perspective of constructivism, in which various meanings are socially and historically constructed with a view to develop a theory or pattern. The researcher analysis was based on legal regulations where conflicts occurred in the law enforcement among the three state institutions acting as the basis of constitutional law, which were; Jakarta Corruption Court; High Court of Appeals for the Special Capital Region of Jakarta; and Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.The results of the research show real evidence, the application of law, abuse of power and authority in state-owned enterprises, which was carried out by the former President Director of PT Pertamina so that the state suffered losses. At the Corruption Crime Court and the Jakarta High Court apply the Corruption Crime Law, but the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia applies business law. In terms of this significant difference, it has resulted in constitutional law academics assessing decisions that do not reflect a sense of justice. The researcher's suggestion is that the panel of judges in a state institution should have no differences in taking legal considerations on abuse of power and authority that harm the state.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».