Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

TELAAH TENTANG REKOMENDASI OMBUDSMAN TERHADAP FRAUD PERBANKAN Yasin, Muhammad Rus’an
Katalogis Vol 4, No 11 (2016)
Publisher : Katalogis

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (226.423 KB)

Abstract

This was a normative research. The problem in this thesis were “1) How is legal standing on Ombudsman recommendation in solving people report?. 2) In scheme of related authority, how is the quality of Ombudsman authority in solving banking Fraud ?. The research aims to: 1) understand the limitation of Ombudsman authority toward banking Fraud happening to BUMN banking and BUMD. 2) understand legal standing of Ombudsman authority to refund to the reporter.  The conclusions are: First, banking fraud is maladministration and included in illegal action. Second, Ombudsman recommendation power has been acknowledged by . It is because it already stipulated normatively in Legislation either at Act 38 UU No. 37 of 2008, Act 36 article (2) and (3) UU No. 25 of 2009, or in Act 351 UU No. 9 of 2015. Third, the related authority in solving report by Ombudsman and OJK are included in Act 7 and 8 No. 37 of 2008 and Act 28 and 30 UU No. 21 of 2011. Fourth, the authority limitation is stipulated in Act 5 Ombudsman Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 2 of 2009 and Act 41 at POJK No. 1/POJK.07/2013. Finally, the author advised as follow: First, Financial Service Authority (FSA) must revise Act 41 POJK No. 1/POJK.07/2013. Second, Ombudsman should revise Act 1 UU No. 37 of 2008. Third, Ombudsman and Financial Service Authority (FSA) should build institutional coordination that prioritizes the reporters’ interest. Fourth, in line with Ombudsman recommendation of banking fraud, then, Financial Service Authority must do it. 
KEWENANGAN OMBUDSMAN DALAM PENANGANANLAPORAN PELAYANAN PUBLIK Yasin, Muhammad Rus’an; Akbar, Muhammad; Hasmin, Moh. Yusuf
Jurnal Kolaboratif Sains Vol 1, No 1 (2020)
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Palu

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31934/jom.v1i1.1305

Abstract

Hasil dari pembahasan ini yaitu pertama, mekanisme penanganan laporan pelayanan publik oleh Ombudsman menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2008 yakni terlebih dahulu “harus” dilaporkan pada instansi terlapor, sedangkan menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2009, yakni tidak mengharuskan masyarakat menyampaikan pada institusi terlapor. Kedua, penyelesaian disharmoni kedua peraturan perundang-undangan ini yakni dengan melakukan harmonisasi dan sinkronisasi oleh lembaga yang berwenang. Akhirnya, penulis memberikan saran pertama, sebaiknya pihak Ombudsman Republik Indonesia dan kementerian Hukum dan HAM, berkoordinasi untuk melakukan harmonisasi dan sinkronisasi terhadap ketentuan yang mengatur penanganan laporan sebagaimana terdapat dalam  UU No. 37 Tahun 2008  dan  UU No. 25 Tahun 2009. Kedua, kepada pihak pembuat Undang-Undang agar dapat merubah beberapa pasal yang ada dalam kedua UU tersebut, guna menghilangkan kebingungan pada lembaga pelaksananya. Kata Kunci : Ombudsman, Penanganan Laporan, Harmonisasi dan Sinkronisasi.