| dc.description.abstract | Scholars of constitutional law generally agree that impeachment involves a political and legal process. Without a legal process, the legitimacy of impeachment is often debated, even accusing of being just a political weapon to bring down a President who is not liked. This study aims to compare the legal aspects of impeachment in three countries: Indonesia, the United States, and South Korea. The legal aspects studied relate to the principle of due process to protect the rights of the President who was impeached and the legal rules of impeachment.
The research method used in this thesis is normative juridical research with a comparative approach. According to the results of this research, the impeachment mechanism in the United States Congress is political. The principle of due process has been a long tradition, but its application to impeachment proceedings is very dynamic. The final decision for impeachment of the President is based on the majority vote mechanism in the Senate. Meanwhile, the impeachment mechanism in South Korea is legal. The principle of due process has been emphasized in the Constitution and applies in impeachment trials. The final impeachment decision rests with the Constitutional Court, while the National Assembly must adjust its demands to the standards of the Constitutional Court.
The impeachment mechanism in Indonesia prior to the amendment to the 1945 Constitution was political in nature and ignored the principle of due process. After the amendment, however, the impeachment mechanism involves the Constitutional Court. If the Constitutional Court declares that the president is proven to have violated the law, then the final decision rests with the MPR. In this case, the MPR as a political institution can make a different decision from the Constitutional Court with super majority vote. With such a design, impeachment in the 1945 Constitution after the amendment cannot be said to be purely legal in nature. | en_US |
