Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT MECHANISM
IN THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COMPARISON
Satrya Pangadaran dan Dian Parluhutan
Fakultas Hukum UPH, Karawaci
[email protected]; [email protected]
Abstrak
Republik Indonesia (RI) dan Amerika Serikat (AS), keduanya memiliki
mekanisme impeachment dalam konstitusinya. Walau demikian, secara
komparasi hukum di dalam mekanisme impeachment Indonesia dan
Amerika terdapat sejumlah perbedaan. Perbedaan-perbedaan tersebut
dilatarbelakangi, antara lain oleh iklim demokrasi serta pengalaman
demokrasi di masing-masing negara tersebut. Di Indonesia, proses
impeachment pertamakali dilakukan pada masa pemerintahan Presiden
Sukarno dimana mekanisme impeachment ketika itu belum diatur secara
eksplisit dalam Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Dasar 1945
(UUD 1945). Setelah dilakukan amandemen ketiga terhadap UUD 1945,
barulah mekanisme impeachment diatur secara tegas dalam UUD 1945.
Berdasarkan ketentuan UUD 1945 amandemen ketiga, Mahkamah Konstitusi
Republik Indonesia (MKRI) memiliki wewenang yudisial untuk memberikan
putusan terhadap pendapat Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) perihal
dugaan pelanggaran oleh Presiden dan/atau Wakil Presiden sebagai pejabat
Negara. Sedangkan di Amerika Serikat, proses impeachment telah beberapa
kali dilaksanakan, salah satunya proses impeachment terhadap Presiden
Bill Clinton pada 19 Desember 1998, dimana Presiden Clinton merupakan
presiden terakhir yang terkena proses impeachment sampai saat ini. Namun
demikian, dalam perkembangannya Presiden Clinton masih menjalankan
jabatannya sebagai Presiden AS. Dalam hal ini, proses impeachment tidak
harus berakhir pada berakhirnya masa jabatan seorang Presiden.
Kata kunci: mekanisme impeachment, UUD 1945, Konstitusi Amerika
Serikat
123
Satrya Pangandaran dan Dian Parluhutan: Judicial Impeachment Mechanism In The...
A. Introduction
Impeachment as a legal process has its origins in England.1 The
procedure has since been adopted in many countries all over the world as a
means to remove a government official from his position for non-performance
of the state duties or other inappropriate actions. Generally speaking, the
impeachment process shall be imposed toward the senior government officers,
having “high powerful” state positions and have been alleged for committing
unlawful acts or other crimes. However, these crimes are not subject to a
common judicial power. Thus, most countries have institutionalized the
impeachment mechanism toward the president, vice president and senior
government officers in order to remove them from the offices due to the
misconducts and other committed crimes.
In terms of comparison of the impeachment mechanism applied to
the presidential system, two countries have been singled out: the Republic
of Indonesia and the United States of America (USA). In Indonesia, there
were two Presidents who have had been impeached, they were President
Sukarno and President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) in the year of 1967
and in the year of 2001. The first President was impeached because of national
instability, notably political and economic turbulences during the 1960 periods
caused by the revolt of so called “G 30 S/PKI”. As the result thereof, the
People Consultative Assembly deemed the President had not performed his
constitutional duties, breached the state guidelines by the People Consultative
Assembly and removed the President from the Office through Resolution
Number XXXIII/MPRS/1967. On the other hand, President Gus Dur was
impeached chiefly due to three reasons: an alleged misuse of BULOG and
Brunei Darussalam funds, the removal of the Indonesia Police Chief from his
position without obtaining prior assent of the Parliament (DPR), and announce
publicly a menace to dissolve the Parliament if a political compromise had
not been achieved. Subsequently, as the consequence People Consultative
Assembly (MPR) issued Resolution Number III/MPR/2001 on the Removal
of President Wahid from his position.
1 John Murphy: “The U.S Government How It Works: The Impeachment Process”, (New
York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2007), hal.13
124
Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
Meanwhile in the United States, the most well known impeachment case
is President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) impeachment involving
an allegation of sexual harassment. President Clinton was impeached by the
House of Representatives in a straight party-line vote. On December 19, 1998
the House of Representatives gave the assent on two articles of impeachment
against President William Jefferson Clinton, claiming the president had
“willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process.” The Senate began
the impeachment trial on January 14, 1999, focusing on the definition of “high
crimes” and “misdemeanors.” Because the requirement of the necessary twothirds vote on either article of impeachment had not fulfilled (Article I, 55 to
45; Article II, 50 to 50), consequently the Senate acquitted President Clinton
on February 12, 1999.
In the year of 1868, President Andrew Johnson had also suffered from
the impeachment process mainly because of the crisis of Reconstruction
after the Civil War. The impeachment was deemed as the most famous of
all impeachment trials prior to that of President Bill Clinton. After President
Johnson had succeeded the presidency in 1865, his policy for the reconstruction
receives a harsh opposition from the Congress, especially the Radical
Republicans. Some of the Congress Members began to initiate impeachment
petition not in a long time after the Congress rejected the President’s Veto
over the implementation of the Tenure of Office Act and the Reconstruction
Act. Moreover, following the President’s decision to dismiss the Secretary
of War E. Stanton, the Members of the House of Representatives agreed
to impeach President Johnson due to infringement of the Tenure of Office
Act. On 2nd February 1868, the President was officially impeached when the
House of Representatives voted eleven articles of impeachment against the
President Johnson. However, the impeachment trial against the President
abruptly ended because of the voting in the Senate.2
2 Keith E. Whittington, “Bill Clinton was no Andrew Johnson: Comparing Two
Impeachment”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 2,
March 2000:27, hal. ?
125
Satrya Pangandaran dan Dian Parluhutan: Judicial Impeachment Mechanism In The...
B. Definition of Impeachment
Impeachment is an act of accusing or charging someone with a crime
or misdemeanor.3 Moreover, Black’s Law Dictionary defines impeachment
as “ A criminal proceedings against a public officer, before a quasi-political
court instituted by a written accusation called ‘articles of impeachment”.4
Thus, the term of impeachment does not automatically constitute the removal
of the President and/form the Office
The impeachment process generally refers to a political trial to
remove a public offical. However, the process differs across states depending
on the prevailing consitutional systems. The process begins with formation
of some investigative body, typically (through not always) in the legislature,
to examine the alleged misdeeds of president (or those close to him) and
subsequent activity sorrounding the authorization of a trial to remove the
president.
Indeed, the impeachment process is to be considered as one of power held
by legislative institution to perform supervisory function toward senior
public officials, authorized by the citizens to implement the state duties and
obligations. In continuous violations of by law either passed by constitution
or positive law, the public official can be charged by the impeachment process
to remove him from office.
Principally speaking, there are several considerations in the impeachment
imposed to the President5 :
1. The Institutional Balance of Power. Both impeachment and removal
process toward president/vice president must carefully consider the regime
structure and relationships between various insitutions of government,
notably legislative, executive and judiciary.
2. Constitional and Statutory Provisions for Impeachment. Many factors
must be considered in the impeachment process, taking into account
the achievement of a greater degree of executive stability. Hence, the
3 John Murphy. Op. Cit, hal. .91
4 Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition , Centennial Edition
(1891-1991)
5 Jody C. Baumgartner and Noako Kada, Checking Executive Power, Presidential
Impeachment In Comparative Perspective, (London: Pranger, 2003), hal. 7 - 16
126
Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
continuous compliance with prevailing laws both constitutional and
statutory provisions is a prerequisite in the impeachment process.
3. The Political Party Structure. The presidential impeachment is played
out between institutions of government that are comprised (with the
exeception or some president) of political parties members. A president
who controls the House of Representatives can significantly impact the
impeachment process. Therefore, the presidential impeachment typically
has distinct partisan overtones.
4. The Popularity of President. The popularity of president is a critical
factor in order to understand the emergence and outcome of a presidential
impeachment process. The higher the president’s popularity thus the more
difficult would be the impeachment process for removing the President
from the office.
5. Other Factor. The liberal circumstances in which professional norms
are oriented toward investigative journalism, namely the existence
of a freedom of journalism. As the fourth pillar in democracy system
the journalism plays a critical role to determine the outcome of the
impeachment process.
The high crime is the most sigfnificant factor affecting the presidential
impeachment, which comprises: Treason, felonies and misdemeanors, White
Collar Crime, Violent Personal Criminal Behavior, Occasional Property
Criminal Behavior, Conventional Criminal Behavior, Political Criminal
Behavior, Occupational Criminal Behavior, Corporate Criminal Behavior,
Organized Criminal Behavior, Professional Criminal Behavior, Political
Criminal Nexus (PCN).6
6 Roy Godson: “Transnational Crime, Corruption, and Security” in the Grave New
World: Security Challenge in the 21st Century, hal. 1. Political criminal nexus focuses
on individual political leaders and define their government as criminal because
the leaders themselves or the political systems they manage, regularly violate the
criminal statutes of he own societies. This catagory would include what have come
to be known as “kleptocracies” systems headed by very corrupt leaders who use their
political authority to enrich themselves, their familiy and their political allies. Focus
here is on the collaboration between two sets of groups and institutions, the political
establishment and criminal underwold. The involvment is sustained, although it may
take different forms. Sometimes it is easy to distinguish between two sets of players.
127
Satrya Pangandaran dan Dian Parluhutan: Judicial Impeachment Mechanism In The...
In the event the President has been alleged committing one of those
crimes thus the impeachment process shall be initiated. Accordingly, in the
following sections the comparisons between impeachment mechanisms
Indonesia and United States shall be analyzed.
C. The Impeachment Mechanism in Indonesia
Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution stipulates “The President and/or
Vice President may be removed from his/her position during his/her term of
office by the People Consultative Assembly on the proposal of the People’s
Representative Council, whether it is proven that he/she has violated the
law through an act of treason, corruption, bribery, other serious criminal
offences, or through moral turpitude and/or that he/she no longer meets the
qualifications to serve as the President and/or Vice-President”.
Generally speaking, the impeachment mechanism in Indonesia consists
of the political process and judicial one. Hence, the impeachment process
shall pass through 3 (three) state institutions: the House of Representatives
(DPR); the Constitutional Court (MKRI); and People Consultative Assembly
(MPR).
1. The Role of the House of Representatives
In order to perform its supervisory role, DPR is able to initiate
the impeachment process toward the President and/or Vice President in
accordance with Article 7B verse (2) UUD 1945.7 Initially, the House
of Representatives set up a special commission investigating the alleged
crimes and collecting ample evidences thereof. Subsequently, DPR makes
an opinion by a vote of two-thirds of its members on whether there is
a prima facie basis to charge the President and/or Vice President. In
order to obtain the confirmative opinion, a minimum of two third of all
7 “Pendapat Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat bahwa Presiden dan/atau Wakil Presiden telah
melakukan pelanggaran hukum tersebut ataupun telah tidak lagi memenuhi syarat
sebagai Presiden dan/atau Wakil Presiden adalah dalam rangka pelaksanaan fungsi
pengawasan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat.”
128
Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
the Members must give their assents. Afterward, DPR must submit this
endorsed opinion to the Constitutional Court.
2. The Role of the Constitutional Court
Having received the opinion, MKRI as the judiciary institution,
shall verify, adjudicate, and give the judicial decision by giving reasonable
justifications over the impeachment opinion against the President and/
or Vice President. The MKRI’s adjudication process, particularly in
the impeachment process, is an adversarial one, which means MKRI
summons the President and/or Vice President merely to be inquired by
the Constitutional Court either to cross-check or to obtain the additional
information. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives must previously
fulfill the formal requirements as well as the substantive requirements.8
The time period for MKRI in adjudicating and giving a final decision over
the impeachment case is 90 (ninety) days as of the DPR’s impeachment
opinion has been registered by the MKRI’s Registrar.
3. The Role of the People Consultative Assembly
After the Constitutional Court has reached a final decision
confirming the opinion of the House of Representatives, DPR shall proceed
the impeachment process to the People Consultative Assembly. MPR shall,
within 30 (thirty) days as of the submission of impeachment petition by
the House of Representatives, hold a plenary assembly to decide whether
to remove or not to remove the President and/or Vice President from the
office according to Article 7B verse (6) UUD 1945.9 Nevertheless, it is
8 Pertaining the formal requirements according to Article 80 verse (3) Law Number
24/2003 there are three requirements: (i) legal standing, (ii) judicial authority of MKRI
to adjudicate, (iii) procedural aspects required to fulfil for the initiation of impeachment
process. As to the substantive requirements for the impeachment process, there are
two requirements: (i) the President and/or Vice President has committed a crime as
prescribed by Article 10 verse (3) Law number 24/2003 as well as (ii) the President
and/or Vice President has been disqualified to hold the position according to Article 6
verse (2) 1945 Constitution.
9 The plenary assembly must be attended by minimum of 2/3 (two third) of all the
MPR’s Members.
129
Satrya Pangandaran dan Dian Parluhutan: Judicial Impeachment Mechanism In The...
possible due to changing political circumstances the People Consultative
Assembly decides not to remove the President and/or Vice President from
the office. Thereby, MPR can negate the Constitutional Court decision
in the impeachment process taking into account the prominent political
character of the impeachment mechanism per se.
Broadly speaking, Article 7A 1945 Constitution sets out the principal
reasons for the initiation of impeachment process toward the President and/
or Vice President. Nevertheless, the article does not elaborate meaning of the
terms like an act of treason, and corruption. Fortunately, we are able to find
the elaborations of the terms in the Article 10 verse (3) Law Number 24 year
of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Followings are
the elaborations provided by the provisions of Article 10 (3) Law Number
24/2003:
a. Act of Treason against the State10
An act of treason is a criminal act against the state’s security as
prescribed by the prevailing Laws. The Laws comprise the Indonesia Penal
Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana /KUHP) Book Two Chapter
One regarding Crimes against State Security as well as Law Number 15
year of 2003 concerning Eradication of Terrorisms. Act of Treason can be
classified into two categories:
a) Internal act of treason (hoogveraad) which aimed to change the State
structures, including crimes against the Head of State and the internal
security (inwendige veligheid) of the State;
b) External act of treason (lanverraad) which aimed to make the State
becomes vulnerable from outsiders’ threats, like conferring illegal aids
to an enemy State. Principally it is related to extra security of the State
(uitwendige veiligheid).11
10 Winarno, Yudho, et.al., “Mekanisme Impeachment dan Hukum Acara Konstitusi”,
(Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian MKRI dan Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2005),
hal. 64
11 Wirjono Prodjodikoro, Tindak-Tindak Pidana Tertentu di Indonesia, edisi 3 (Bandung:
Refika Aditama, 2003), hal. 195-196
130
Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
b. Corruption and Bribery
Article 10 verse (3) point b stipulates that corruption and bribery are
criminal acts defined by the Law, notably Law Number 20 year of 1991 on
the amendment of Law Number 31 year of 1999 concerning Eradication
of Corruptions. The Law prescribes three classifications of corruption:
corruption in the general sense12; corruption related to the state official
position13; other crimes related to obstruction of justice.14
c. Other Serious Criminal Offences
Other serious criminal offences are act of crimes which can be
penalized by imprisonment minimum of 5 (five) years according to Article
10 verse (3) point c Law Number 24/2003.
d. Moral Turpitude
Article 10 verse (3) point d stipulates that a moral turpitude is an act
which humiliates the President and/or Vice-President. The concept of
moral turpitude is of a relatively similar to the concept of misdemeanor in
United States Constitution.
e. Disqualified as the President and/or Vice President.
Article 10 verse (3) point e refers to Article 6 verse (1) 1945
Constitution elaborating the required qualifications for the President and/
or Vice President stipulates that he/she:
a) is a citizen of Indonesia
b) has been never committed an act of treason against the State
c) is spiritually and physically capable to perform the State’s duties and
responsibilities as the President and/or Vice-President.
D. The Impeachment Mechanism in the United States of America
Pursuant to Constitution of the United States of America Article II
Section 4 ” The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
12 Article 2-3 Law Number 31/1999
13 Article 5-12A Law Number 31/1999 juncto Law Number 20/2001
14 Article 21-24 Law Number 31/1999 juncto Law Number 20/2001
131
Satrya Pangandaran dan Dian Parluhutan: Judicial Impeachment Mechanism In The...
In general, the removal of the President and all civil Officers of the
United States has been placed by constitutional mandate in the hands of the
United States Legislative Branch which is the Congress, as prescribed in
Article I (Legislature) Section 1 (Legislative Power Vested) “All legislative
Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”.
1. The House of Representatives’ Role15
Article I, Section 2, Clause.5 stipulates “The House of Representatives
….shall have the sole Power of Impeachment”.
The process starts when the House of Representatives initiates an
impeachment process regarding the misconduct committed by the civil
officers during his/her tenure. Two requirements must be fulfilled by the
House of Representatives to obtain the approval initiating the impeachment
process: First, the approval must be taken by a plenary assembly attended
by two third of all the Members. Second, two third of all the Members shall
give their assents thereof. Afterward, the House of Representatives is able
to proceed the impeachment process to the Senate, provided the House of
Representatives has already drafted the Articles of Impeachment previously.
The Articles of Impeachment is drafted by the House of Representatives’
Judiciary Committee which stipulates the reasons enabling the impeachment
process.16 Additionally, the Committee has a role to act on behalf of the House
of Representatives within the impeachment trial in the United States Senate.17
15 John Murphy, Op Cit., hal. 9
16 Constitution of The United States of America, Article I section 3 clause 6 stipulates:
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment. When sitting for the
purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the president of the United States
is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-third of the members present”.
17 Elizabeth B. Bazan and Anna C. Henning, Impeachment: An Overview of
Constitutional Provisions, Procedure and Practice, CSR Report for Congress: June 22,
2009, hal. 2-5
132
Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
2. The Role of the Senate18
According to Article I Section 3 Clause 6 “The Senate shall have the
sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall
be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,
the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present”.
In the impeachment process, the Senate has an unique role, that is to say
it has the sole authority and responsibility to try an impeachment which is
petitioned by the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the authority
to make a final decision as to whether to convict on any of the articles of
impeachment has been placed solely in the hand of the Senate. However, as to
the articles of impeachment two thirds majority vote of the Senators present
is required for the basis of conviction of each article therein. Had the Senate
found the civil Officer is convicted, thus the Senate shall come to the final
judgment, notably: either merely removal from the office, or, alternatively,
removal and disqualifications from holding further offices of public trust
under the United States. In the event of the impeachment trial process against
the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the
trial and all the Members of the Senate shall act as the Jury, meanwhile the
Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives plays a role as the State
Prosecutor, relatively similar to the regular Court. The Senate conduct of the
impeachment trials is elaborated in the “Rules of Procedure and Practice in
the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials.”
Substantially speaking, in the United States there are two principal
requirements must be fulfilled prior to the initiation of the impeachment
process: Firstly, whether the alleged person can be categorized as “civil
Officers of the United States”. Secondly, whether the alleged conduct
constitutes “Treason, Bribery or Other High Crimes or Misdemeanors.”
18 U.S Senate “Impeachment” Pustaka Konstitusi 2004
133
Satrya Pangandaran dan Dian Parluhutan: Judicial Impeachment Mechanism In The...
a. The term “civil Officers of the United States”
Although the term is not clearly defined in the Constitution,
however the impeachment precedents clearly indicate that the civil
Officers comprises both of the Judicial and Executive Branches of the
State. Furthermore, the statement of the Supreme Court in United States
v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303 (1888), explicitly stipulates that
“Unless a person in the service of the government hold his place by
virtue of an appointment by the President, or one of the courts of justice
or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment,
he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.”19
In addition, regarding the term civil Officer of the United States,
the Appointment Clause of the Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause
2 elaborates as follows “ He shall ….nominate , and by and with the
Advice of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, an all other Officers of the
United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provide for,
and which shall be established by Law: but Congress may by Law vest
the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the
President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Head of Departments.
Hence, a private citizen does not fall within the term civil Officers of
the United States in the impeachment process, provided he/she had not
committed the misconduct during his/her tenure in the Office.20
b. The alleged misconduct which constitutes reasons for the impeachment
Prior to impeachment process, the United States Congress shall
endeavor to ascertain that the alleged misconduct committed by the civil
Officers has fulfilled the constitutional parameters of “Treason, Bribery, or
Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Followings sections elaborates
those alleged misconducts:
19 Elizabeth B. Bazan and Anna C. Henning, Op.Cit., hal.16
20 Ibid
134
Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
a) Treason
An act of treason is defined in the Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
of the US Constitution as well as in the Statute, 18 U.S.C.§ 2381, which
means levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort. Moreover, the conviction of an act of treason
shall be based on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or
a confession in open court.
b) Bribery
An act of bribery as an offense at common law is not defined in the
US Constitution, yet it is clearly defined in the 18 U.S.C.§ 201 which
amended and codified the Act of April 30,1790 on the Bribery Statute.
c) Other High Crimes
Both of the US Constitution and Statute, unfortunately, do not provide
definition of the term other high crimes. The term was widely used in the
English impeachment processes, whereas the proceedings involve criminal
sanctions imposed upon the conviction. From the previous impeachment
precedents, it can be reasoned that the impeachment process may also
follow the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the civil Officer.
d) Misdemeanors
The term misdemeanor is also not defined neither in the US
Constitution nor Statute, which consequently raised many debates
pertaining its definite interpretations until nowadays.
E. Conclusion
From the impeachment mechanisms described above, several distinct
comparative aspects in the Republic of Indonesia and the United States of
America can be inferred as follows. Firstly, from the procedural aspect the
impeachment mechanism in Indonesia is relatively more complicated than
the United States of America impeachment mechanism. In Indonesia the
mechanism involves four different state institutions in terms of the state
functions and the hierarchy, which are: the House of Representatives (DPR),
135
Satrya Pangandaran dan Dian Parluhutan: Judicial Impeachment Mechanism In The...
the Constitutional Court (MKRI), and the People Consultative Assembly
(MPR).
In contrast, in the United States the impeachment mechanism,
mainly involves and is largely determined by the Congress (the House of
Representatives and the Senate) as the Legislative Power as well as the key
role of the Supreme Court Chief of Justice in the trial process within the
Senate. Secondly, from the reasonable causes giving rise to impeachment
process, in the United States the provision of Article II Section 4 is somewhat
more vague than the corresponding provision in Article 7A UUD 1945. The
terms other high crimes and misdemeanors are not defined elaborative in the
Constitution and in the Statues of the United States. On the other hand in
Indonesia, the provision of Article 7A UUD 1945 is elaborated by Article 10
(3) Law Number 24/2003 concerning the Constitutional Court of the Republic
of Indonesia (MKRI). Thirdly, the scope of subject of imposition in Article
II Sections 4 US Constitution is wider than of Article 7A 1945 Indonesia
Constitution (UUD 1945). In the United States, not only the President and/
or Vice President can be subject of impeachment mechanism but also all
civil Officers of the United States. In contrast, according to Article 7A UUD
1945 only the President and/or Vice President who can be imposed by the
impeachment process, which serves as the extraordinary justice system in
Indonesia.
References
Books and Journals:
Black, Henry Campbell, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Centennial
Edition (1891-1991)
Elizabeth B. Bazan and Anna C. Henning, Impeachment: An Overview of
Constitutional Provisions, Procedure and Practice, CSR Report for
Congress: June 22, 2009
136
Law Review Volume XI No. 1 - Juli 2011
Jody C. Baumgartner and Noako Kada, Checking Executive Power, Presidential
Impeachment in Comparative Perspective, London: Praeger, 2003
John Murphy: “The U.S Government How It Works: The Impeachment
Process”, New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2007
Keith E. Whittington, “Bill Clinton was no Andrew Johnson: Comparing Two
Impeachment”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional
Law, Vol. 2, March 2000: 27
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Impeachment (Kumpulan
Makalah), Jakarta: Pustaka Konstitusi No.010/2004, 2004
Roy Godson: “Transnational Crime, Corruption, and Security” in the Grave
New World: Security Challenge in the 21st Century
Soimin, Impeachment Presiden dan Wakil Presiden di Indonesia, Yogyakarta:
UII Press, 2009.
Wildan, Harris Fadillah “Perbandingan Konstitusional Pengaturan
Impeachment Presiden Dan Wakil Presiden Antara Republik Indonesia
Dengan Amerika Serikat Dalam Mewujudkan Demokrasi” (Skripsi
Fakultas Hukum), Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta, 2010.
Wirjono Prodjodikoro, Tindak-Tindak Pidana Tertentu di Indonesia, edisi 3,
Bandung: Refika Aditama, 2003
Yudho,Winarno et.al., “Mekanisme Impeachment dan Hukum Acara
Konstitusi”, Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian MKRI dan
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2005
Zoelva, Hamdan, Impeachment Presiden: Alasan Tindak Pidana
Pemberhentian Presiden Menurut UUD 1945 , Jakarta: Konstitusi
Press, 2005
Regulations:
1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia
Constitution of United States of America
Law Number 31 year of 1999 about Eradication of Corruption
137