Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo Universitas Diponegoro, Faculty of Law, Semarang, Indonesia

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 4, April 2018, pp. 871 882, Article ID: IJCIET_09_04_098 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?jtype=ijciet&vtype=9&itype=4 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed THE ARRANGEMENTS AND MECHANISMS OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT ON THE GROUND OF BETRAYAL OF STATE FROM THE GOOD GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK: A STUDY OF POST AMENDMENT INDONESIAN CONSTITUTION Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo Universitas Diponegoro, Faculty of Law, Semarang, Indonesia ABSTRACT The Amendment of the 1945 Constitution brought about changes in the Indonesian State System, including the mechanism of accountability and control over the President and Vice President, which is the framework of Good Governance. Criminal acts of treason against the State is one of the limitative reasons accommodated in Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The results of the research indicate that there are two impeachment models as the mechanism of controlling the accountability of state high officials, especially the President and Vice President, namely the impeachment model and the forum model previlegiatum (legal control). While both of which were adopted by Indonesia, the United States, the Philippines and Brazil used the impeachment model. Criminal acts of treason against the State as one reason for impeachment are also enacted in the United States and the Philippines with a similar editorial, which is that war action against the State, subject to the enemy and provide assistance. In Indonesia, the provisions are regulated in Article 104-129 of the Penal Code, while in the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the provisions are located in Article 220-262 with the chapter on crimes against the security of the State and with the scope of state ideology, president and vice president, state territory, government sustainability, state and military secrets, State neutrality and national security have similar editorial, including on the concept of many new offenses, special minimal sanctions, several categories of fines and the inclusion of terrorism crimes into which almost entirely can be the reason for impeachment both doing something (commission) and offense omission (omission). http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 871 editor@iaeme.com

The Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment to the President and Vice President on the Ground of Betrayal of State from the Good Governance Framework: A Study of Post Amendment Indonesian Constitution Keywords: Impeachment, Head of State, Good Governance, Constitution. Cite this Article: Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo, The Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment to the President and Vice President on the Ground of Betrayal of State from the Good Governance Framework: A Study of Post Amendment Indonesian Constitution, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(4), 2018, pp. 871 882. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?jtype=ijciet&vtype=9&itype=4 1. INTRODUCTION The 1945 Constitution as the constitution of the State of Indonesia has been amended as much as 1 (one) time in 4 (four) stages that determines the formal structure of the government, details the power and central government institutions, and the balance between the government at the central level and other levels. Overall, Rod Hague et al. (as cited in Budiman, 2009) state that the constitution determines the rights of the people as well as the limits and obligations of the government. Thus, the presence of a constitution within a state is absolutely necessary as a basis to explain the interrelation and reciprocity between the state as well as the state organs with citizens. Based on the view that the constitutional review of the 1945 Constitution contains a centralistic character, opens opportunities for centralization of power to the executive (President), so that whoever becomes President will repeat the same tendency (with the former president) authoritarian. To avoid recurrence of the same error, the source of the cause must be corrected, and that means that the amendment of the Constitution becomes a necessity. Moreover, because of its complexity, involving the executive, legislative and judicial power at once, impeachment has also attracted large discussion from scholars, by investigating the process of impeachment in some nations (McConnell, 1987; Breyer, 1995; Heflin, 1987; Gunther, 1974; Gerhardt, 2000; Bushnell, 1992; Rosenn, & Downes, 1999; Souza et al., 2016). The amendment of the Constitution can be seen as a form of affirmation of the presidential government system adopted by Indonesia. This is marked by the President no longer responsible to the People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat/MPR), and the term of office of the president is limited to 5 years (fixed term executive) elected in a pair of President and Vice President through general elections directly by the people and can only be re-elected in the same position as much as one time. In the presidential government system, the President becomes the fulcrum of the government. The President becomes head of state as well as head of government who in carrying out its duties and functions assisted by the Vice President. On the other hand, the amendment undermines executive heavy and centralized power of the executive. Explicitly, the 1945 Constitution amendment also has an effect on the position of the President and or Vice President in Indonesia, including the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President in Indonesia as well as the embodiment of the principle of good governance who want a restriction in a position both authority limitation, limitation of power and an appropriate, responsible, clear and legitimate system (Sedarmayanti, 2004; Hakim, 2017). The State of Indonesia is a country that embraces the principle of a constitutional state so that in relation to the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President, the process of impeachment shall be in a previlegiatum forum, in which the President and / or Vice President shall no longer be dismissed for purely political reasons that was happened to first president (Soekarno) and fourth president (Abdurrahman Wahid). For impeachment, there must be a special court of state administration in the process of dismissal. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 872 editor@iaeme.com

Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo The amendment of the 1945 Constitution legitimizes that when the President and Vice President in his / her term of office have committed a violation of the law in the form of treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes or disgraceful acts or if proven to no longer qualify as President and / or Vice President, giving opinions on the violations committed by the President and / or Vice President to be submitted to the Constitutional Court and disconnected whether the allegations are true or not and appropriate or not to be dismissed, then the Special Session of the People's Consultative Assembly which is a joint council of national parliament (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat/DPR, henceforth abbreviated as DPR) and Regional Representative Council to establish dismissed or not. Since there are many reasons for impeachment that can lengthen the discussion, this research will only review one of the reasons for the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President for treason against the state. The authors consider that the most interesting reason is because the President and Vice President should uphold the constitution and protect the state's safety and security from threatening, disturbing and destructive actions. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court Law provides an extension of the meaning of treason against the state, namely the criminal act against state security as stipulated in law. Treason or treason and crime against state security are some of the most serious and worrying crimes. Behavior in this category will greatly jeopardize the security and prosperity of the nation. Crimes against the security of the state are governed in the Criminal Code of Book II on Crimes of Chapter I on Crimes against the State from articles 104 to 129 which include, among others, incidents of the heads of state, defeating to include Indonesia under foreign rule, to overthrow the government, rebellion, conspiracy, to engage with foreign countries hostile to Indonesia, to engage with foreign countries with the aim of allowing foreign countries to assist in the overthrow of the Indonesian government, to broadcast secret letters, crimes concerning the buildings of state defense, harming the country in diplomatic negotiations, crimes committed by enemy spies, concealing enemy spies and cheating in the case of selling state goods. However, it is worthwhile to note that the current Criminal Code in Indonesia is a legacy of the Dutch colonial era when traced further from the Penal Code of France in 1810. Certainly, the building of the Criminal Code can be said to have been obsolete and many inconsistencies with the values of the people of Indonesia, therefore legal renewal national crime (the Criminal Code legislation) in accordance with the value of Indonesian society as well as the development of the global community becomes a necessity. Then it is clear that the need to use the concept of the Criminal Code 2015 in this study so that the results obtained more comprehensive and is the actualization of the law of Indonesia. Some provisions of the Criminal Code concept that also accommodate crimes against state security in the second book about the criminal act of chapter I on crime against state security from article 220 to article 262 which among others accommodate crime against state ideology, crime of treason, criminal acts against defense and state security, and terrorism. Based on the background of the research described above, it can be drawn problem formulation is to describe the process of impeachment of President and Vice President prior to the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, the process of impeaching the President and Vice President by reason of treason against the state after the amendment of the 1945 Constitution Finally, this paper attempts to describe the policy model of impeachment of President and Vice President on the grounds of impending treason against the impending state in the framework of Good Governance. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 873 editor@iaeme.com

The Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment to the President and Vice President on the Ground of Betrayal of State from the Good Governance Framework: A Study of Post Amendment Indonesian Constitution 2. RESEARCH METHODS The approach method used in this legal research is the juridical normative legal approach, which is an approach that refers to laws and regulations by using legislation approach, historical or historical approach, and comparative or comparative approach. In this research, the research specification is used descriptively analytical and through library research method (primary, secondary and tertiary legal material) with qualitative analysis. 2.1. Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment before the 1945 Constitution Amendment 2.1.1. Arrangements Regarding the President and Vice President It is important for us to stand on the provisions of the 1945 Constitution (before the amendment) and TAP MPR Number III / MPR / 1978 on the Status and Working Relations of the Supreme State Institutions with / or Interagency of State Institutions. The elucidation of the 1945 Constitution VII of the third paragraph states that if the Council considers that the President is indeed violating the state guidelines set by the Basic Laws or by the People's Consultative Assembly, then the Assembly may be invited to a special hearing in order to be able to hold the President accountable. 2.1.2. The reasons for the impeachment of the President and / or Vice President In Article 4 of MPR Decree Number III / MPR / 1978 on the Status and Working Relations of the Supreme State Institution with / or Interagency of State Institutions, it is stated that the Assembly may dismiss the President prior to his term of office, because of (a) at their own request, (b) fixed blocked, and (c) really violating the state policy. Firsth, the term "at his own request" means that the initiative of the President to resign during his term of office as President shall be accompanied by the reasons underlying the request. "The permanent obstacle" refers to when the President dies, stops, or cannot perform his duties in his term of office. The President is absent, the Vice President replaces the President until it expires. The reason "seriously violates the direction of the State" can be interpreted very broadly. There is no clear evidentiary mechanism about the state president's qualifications violated by the President The reasons for the dismissal above are too broad and multi interpretations, consequently the position of the President is very easy to be disturbed and even dismissed. 2.1.3. Mechanism of Impeachment of President and / or Vice President a. The Dismissal Mechanism of the President The dismissal mechanism is set out in the MPR Decree. III / MPR / 1978 on the Position and Working Relationship of the Supreme State Institution with / or Inter State Institutions. Mechanism occurs in 2 (two) Institutions namely DPR and MPR, and can be explained as follows. The House of Representatives shall supervise the running of the government as well as all actions of the President in the context of implementing the State Policy. However, if the DPR considers the President to violate the State Policy, in accordance with Article 7 Paragraph (2) of MPR Decree No.III / MPR / 1978, the DPR submits a memorandum to remind the President. Then if within 3 (three) months of the President does not pay attention to the memorandum, then the DPR submits a second memorandum. If within a period of 1 (one) month of the second memorandum is not honored by the President, then the DPR may request the MPR to hold a Special Session to hold the President accountable. The author analogized memoranda like a yellow card in a soccer game. If the player gets the first yellow card he should be careful not to get a second yellow card which means a red card. Similarly, the memorandum submitted by the DPR (referee) to the President (player), if the President http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 874 editor@iaeme.com

Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo does not heed the first memorandum (the first yellow card) then it is possible to get a second memorandum (second yellow card) which means the President can be dismissed. In accordance with the request of the Parliament regarding the holding of the Special Session (SI) by the MPR, the MPR conducted the SI to hold the President accountable. At the request of the People's Consultative Assembly, the President shall be held accountable in the presence of a special SI held to hold the President accountable in the implementation of the State Policy established by the Constitution or the People's Consultative Assembly. The position of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), which is the highest state institution, must decide the responsibility of the President to be accepted or rejected. If the responsibility submitted by the President is rejected then the President is dismissed from his position. The MPR notabenenya is not a Judicial Institution that decides whether the responsibility of the President in the implementation of the State Policy is accepted or rejected. In such a mechanism it is very weakness that there is no standard acceptance or rejection of accountability of the President, so it is possible the dismissal is done because the factor like or dislike it. b. Mechanism of Vice President Dismissal If the Vice-President is unable to remain, the President and / or the House of Representatives may request the Assembly to hold a Special Session to elect the Vice-President. From that provision, the logic is absence remains one of the reasons for the dismissal of the Vice President, so in the dismissal of the Vice President must be preceded by the request for the holding of the Special Session. The request initiative for the holding of the Special Session may come from the President and / or DPR. If the initiative comes from the President, this is because the position of the Vice President is the aide to the President, then the Vice President must also be responsible to the President. If the initiative comes from the House of Representatives, this is due to the task of supervising the running of the government. And if the initiative coming from the President and the House of Representatives means because of the two factors above. Then the MPR responded to the request by holding a Special Session to hold the Vice President accountable. The MPR decides whether the Vice-President's accountability is accepted or not, otherwise the Vice-President is dismissed from his position, then the MPR elects the Vice-President to replace him, this is an affirmation of the position of the People's Consultative Assembly which has wide authority as the highest state institution at that time. c. Practice of Dismissal of the President in Indonesia before the Amendment of the 1945 Constitution First, the impeachment of President Soekarno preceded the unstable political situation and condition caused by the G30S / PKI incident and followed by the national economic crisis caused by the uncertainty of the state's political system, coupled with the community's morality crisis that occurred with the crime in almost all territory of Indonesia. This situation then triggered a feud between President Soekarno and the Provisional Consultative Assembly (MPRS) until finally led to President Soekarno's accountability initiative in front of the MPRS session called Nawaksara Speech delivered on 22 June 1965 (Soimin, 2009). Then MPRS responded to Nawaksara's speech by issuing the decision No. 5 / MPRS / 1966 dated July 5, 1966 which essentially contained a request to President Soekarno to complete his accountability report. President Soekarno responded with a "complementary Nawaksara". Finally, the Special Session of MPRS March 12, 1967 issued the Decree of MPRS no. XXXIII / MPRS / 1967 on the revocation of the power of the State Administration from President Soekarno and appointed Soeharto as President. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 875 editor@iaeme.com

The Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment to the President and Vice President on the Ground of Betrayal of State from the Good Governance Framework: A Study of Post Amendment Indonesian Constitution Secondly, the impeachment process began to emerge when it was associated with two cases of Buloggate of Rp. 35 billion and Bruneigate of US $2 million which, according to some, should be included as revenue / state revenue, not personal. Based on the results of the work and the conclusions of the House of Representatives committee who suspect the involvement, in the Parliament Session Peripurna Accept and approve the report of the work of the Special Committee and decided to be followed up by delivering "memorandum" to remind that President Abdurrahman Wahid violates: 1) violates the 1945 Constitution Article 9 Oath of Position; and 2) violate the Decree of the People's Consultative Assembly. XI/MPR/1998 on the Implementation of a Clean and Free State of corruption, collusion and nepotism. Three months later, on May 1, 2001, the House of Representatives issued a second memorandum because there was no response from the President related to the first memorandum. Therefore, the DPR requested the MPR to immediately hold a Special Session to hold President Abdurrahman Wahid accountable and to impeachment. Considerations in the Decree of MPR RI no. II / MPR / 2001 on the Responsibility of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Abdurrahman Wahid stipulates the main reasons for dismissal, namely: the President takes actions that violate the state policy, impedes the constitutional process because it is absent and refuses to give accountability in the MPR Special Session; Considered to have committed a grave violation of the constitution for issuing a Presidential Decree dated July 23, 2001 which contained the freezing of MPR and DPR by returning sovereignty to the people and the freezing of Golkar Party pending the decision of the Supreme Court. 2.2. Impeachment with the Reason of Betrayal against the State after Constitution Amendment Criminal Act of Betrayal against the State as Reason for Impeachment One of the important developments after the amendment of the 1945 Constitution is the existence of explicit provisions governing the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President in his term by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) on the initiative of the House of Representatives (DPR), Council of Regional Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat/DPR) which has been decided by the Constitutional Court. Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution states that the President and / or Vice-President may be dismissed in his term of office by the People's Consultative Assembly on the recommendation of the People's Legislative Assembly. If one of them proven to have committed a violation of the law in the form of treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious criminal offenses, or disgraceful acts or if proven to no longer qualify as President and / or Vice President. Under these provisions, there are only 2 (two) reasons why the President and / or Vice President may be dismissed in his / her term of office, namely: (1) Committing a violation of the law (treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes or disgraceful acts), and (2) Evidently no longer qualifies as President and / or Vice President. But in this study only focus on treason against the State as the reason for impeachment of the President and / or Vice President. Betrayal of the state is a criminal act against state security as stipulated in law. Regarding the criminal act against state security is regulated in Criminal Code Book II chapter I amended by Law No. 27/1999 on the Amendment of the Criminal Code Relating to Crime Against State Security which includes: the plot (articles 104, 106, 107 of the Indonesian Criminal Code); criminal acts of ideology (articles 107a-107f); rebellion (108 Criminal Code); evil conspiracy (articles 110, 116, 125 of the Criminal Code); establish relationships with foreign countries (art 111, 111 of the Criminal Code); unlocking state http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 876 editor@iaeme.com

Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo secrets (articles 112, 113, 114, 115 of the Criminal Code); crimes on state defense and defense equipment (art. 117, 118, 119, 120 of the Criminal Code); to harm the country in diplomatic negotiations (Article 121 of the Criminal Code); wartime related crimes (articles 122, 123, 124 of the Criminal Code); Crime is not with the intention of helping the enemy give the lodge (article 126 of the Criminal Code); Crime deceived in the delivery of military necessities during the war (article 127 of the Criminal Code). 3. MECHANISM OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT The process starts from the opinion of the People's Legislative Assembly that the President and / or Vice President violate the law as stipulated in article 7A. The proposal for dismissal is the implementation of the oversight function held by the DPR. However, it should be remembered that this process is preceded by the opinion of the People's Legislative Assembly, and the opinion must be tested before it comes to the proposed dismissal of the President and / or Vice President. Then the DPR must first use the "right of opinion" from the implementation of the supervisory function associated with the implementation the right of "interpellation" or "right of inquiry", in which the right of expression of opinion shall be proposed by at least 25 members of the People's Legislative Assembly and must be approved by a plenary session attended by at least 3/4 of the total members of the People's Legislative Assembly, at least 3/4 of the total number of DPR members present. If the People's Legislative Assembly decides to accept the proposal for the right to express an opinion, then the DPR will form a special committee consisting of all elements of the DPR faction with the decision of the DPR, who must report the execution of their duties to the plenary session of the DPR no later than 60 (sixty) days after the establishment of the special committee. Furthermore, if the Parliament decides to receive a special committee report stating that indeed there has been a violation, then the DPR with the support of at least 2/3 of the number of DPR attending the plenary session attended by at least 2/3 of the total members of DPR, about expressing an opinion to the Constitutional Court to be tried. The Constitutional Court is obliged to examine, hear, and decide with fairness to the opinion of the People's Legislative Assembly no later than ninety days after the request of the People's Legislative Assembly is accepted by the Constitutional Court. Here are the procedures and stages in the Constitutional Court: The trial is conducted by the Plenary of Judges attended by at least 7 (seven) judges of the constitution. The Plenary Session is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court and is open to the public. The trial takes place in 6 (six) stages, namely: Phase I (Preliminary Examination Session); Phase II (Response by the President and / or Vice President); Phase III (Verification by DPR); Stage IV (Verification by the President and / or Vice President); Stage V (Conclusion of the Parties); Stage VI (Decision Making). In the case of the opinion of the People's Legislative Assembly regarding the alleged violation of law or the condition / condition of the President and / or the Vice President does not meet the requirements there are three possible judgments handed down by the Constitutional Court. Firstly, if the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the application does not meet the requirements of the Petitioners side and the petition, then the verdict states the petition is unacceptable. Secondly, if the Constitutional Court decides that the President and / or Vice President are proven to have violated the law or proven to be no longer qualified as the opinion of the People's Legislative Assembly, then the decision of the Constitutional Court is declared to justify the opinion of the DPR. Third, if the Constitutional Court decides that the President and / or Vice President are not proven to violate the law or are not proven to http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 877 editor@iaeme.com

The Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment to the President and Vice President on the Ground of Betrayal of State from the Good Governance Framework: A Study of Post Amendment Indonesian Constitution no longer qualify as the opinion submitted by the People's Legislative Assembly, the decision of the Constitutional Court declares the petition to be rejected. The Constitutional Court's decision on the opinion of Parliament must be submitted to the House of Representatives and the President and / or Vice President. This ruling is final in a juridical and binding manner for the Parliament as the party submitting the petition. No later than 30 (thirty) days after receiving the proposal the MPR shall convene a plenary session to decide upon the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President attended by at least 3/4 of the total members and approved by at least 2/3 of the total members who is present, after the President and / or Vice President are given an opportunity to submit an explanation in the plenary session of the Assembly. 3.1. Impeachment Policy for President and Vice President with Criminal Acts of Treason against the Country in the Framework of Good Governance 3.1.1. Comparison of Impeachment for the President and / or Vice President before and After the Amendment of the 1945 Constitution The pre-amendment Constitution does not accommodate the impeachment of the President and / or Vice President, but only regulates the succession of state leadership, namely Article 8 of the 1945 Constitution which states "If the President dies, stops or cannot perform his duties in his term he is replaced by Vice President term. "The reason for the dismissal of the President at the time before the amendment is regulated in the MPR TAP stages is to violate the state policy, in addition to the absence of the Vice President's impeachment arrangement. The state institutions involved only the DPR and MPR. The post-amendment Constitution accommodates the impeachment provisions of the President and / or Vice President. The reasons for impeachment are set limitatively in Article 7A if they are proven to be in violation of the law in the form of treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes or disgraceful acts or if proven to no longer qualify as President and / or Vice President. Institutions involved in the process of the DPR, Constitutional Court and MPR. 3.1.2. Comparison of Presidential and / or Vice Presidential Imposition in Other Countries The President of the United States is the head of state as well as the head of government. Therefore, in his term of office the President can only be dismissed by impeachment mechanism. The Constitution of the United States states that the President, Vice President and all civilian officials of the state may be dismissed from office because they have been proven to have committed crimes in the form of state officials, bribery, serious crimes and disgraceful acts. Beginning with the investigation and investigation by the House of Representatives together with the House Committee of Judiciary (a committee in the field of law), the outcome of this stage is a charge of violation committed by the President, Vice President or Civil Official. Then the indictment supported by the majority of House of Representatives was filed on the Senate. After receiving the indictment from the House of Representative, the Senate will adjudicate all charges. The Senate hearing was presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, then all members of the Senate were sworn in as special judges in the trial. Dismissal may be executed if a 2/3 senate member agrees to decide that the President, Vice President or Civil Official has been proven to have committed the offense charged with it. The judgment imposed in this regard shall be no more than impeachment of office and shall not be allowed to hold honorary, guardianship or profit in the territory of the United States. But further after the verdict can be done investigation and criminal justice, so the defendant is not free from criminal charges. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 878 editor@iaeme.com

Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo The President of the Philippines has held office for 6 (six) years in only one period directly elected by the people. The impeachment of the President, Vice President, Supreme Court Judge, Member of the constitutional commission and member of the ombudsman, by requiring reason for violating the constitution, treason, bribery, gratification and corruption, other serious crimes or treason of public trust. The impeachment mechanism starts with the Ang Aliulula ng mga Kinatawan indictment approved by 1/3 members. Then on trial at Ang Senado led by the Supreme Court chairman who required 2/3 approval from Ang Senado members to realize the impeachment. After the officials are dismissed, a criminal justice process can be done. The president of Brazil holds executive power as head of state and head of government. The National Congress consists of the Federal Senate (Senado Federal) and the Deputy (Câmara dos Deputados). The reasons for impeachment are the inhibiting efforts: the continuity of unity; the exercise of the legislative, judicial, general ministry and federal sections of constitutional powers; the exercise of political, individual and social rights; internal security of the state: honest administration (transparent and accountable); economic policy (monetary); obey the laws and court decisions. Mechanism to impeach the President of Brazil ie if 2/3 of the members of the deputies approve the allegations, then he will try to indict before being processed by the Federal Supreme Court (for public crimes) or before the Federal Senate (for offense as a reason that can dismiss). The President shall be suspended from his duties for 180 days on a general offense, if allegations or criminal reports have been received by the Federal Supreme Court; on offenses that may be dismissed, following a process instituted by the Federal Senate. If, after a period of 180 days, the hearing has not concluded, the President's suspension will end, without prejudice to the ongoing process. The President of the Republic shall not be subject to arrest for a general offense until after the decision of a criminal sentence. During his term of office, the President of the Republic cannot be held responsible for actions unrelated to the performance of his duties. To decide upon this impeachment requires 2/3 federal senate approval. Decision of dismissal with a prohibition to hold public office is for a period of eight years, without prejudice to possible judicial sanctions. 3.2. Impeachment as A Control Mechanism of President and / or Vice Presidential Accountability to Achieve Good Governance The Good Governance Principle embraced by Indonesia desires the accountability of public officials, without exception the President and Vice President. In the presidential system of government it is clear that the President who in his duty is assisted by the Vice President has a central position in government with a very wide authority. Therefore, appropriate control mechanisms are needed to monitor the actions taken by the President and Vice President in order to avoid arbitrariness. Supervision is certainly an important aspect for good governance. It is possible that the President and / or Vice President to be impeached in his / her term of office is a form of legal control mechanism for the accountability of public officials. The current mechanism is that when the President and / or the Vice President in office are deemed inadequate and unable to assume the duties and responsibilities of running the government by the limitative causes of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the legislative body in this case is the House of Representatives conducting surveillance to indict the President and / or Vice President which then the indictment is submitted to the judiciary (Constitutional Court) to be given a decision whether the President and / or Vice President are guilty or not so appropriate to be dismissed, then plenary session of MPR which is a joint DPR and the DPD decides the impeachment. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 879 editor@iaeme.com

The Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment to the President and Vice President on the Ground of Betrayal of State from the Good Governance Framework: A Study of Post Amendment Indonesian Constitution According to the theory of constitutional law there are two ways impeachment of President and / or Vice President. First, by means of "impeachment" ie calls and indictments that end with a decision of dismissal by the legislature. The second is the previlegiatum forum or special legal proceedings, namely dismissal through special court mechanisms, not the legislative mechanism. This means that officials who are considered unlawful can be dismissed through an accelerated court mechanism without going through a conventional level of conventional examination. The trial is first and last level and the final decision (Thalib, 2006). Indonesia itself has adopted impeachment model by DPR and MPR. It has also used the previlegiatum forum model or special legal proceedings at the time of the Constitution of RIS 1949 and the 1950 Constitution. The regulation governs a special court for state officials who commit crimes or offenses, indicating that the accountability of the president and other state officials only relates to criminal liability in the event of criminal involvement in the crime as well as in the form of a violation of office and other crimes and violations in the legislation in his / her term of office. Article 106 Paragraph (1) of the Constitution states the same thing even though the post of President and Vice President cannot be invalidated politically, but with this previlegiatum forum the President and Vice President can still be asked for criminal responsibility for his actions of crime and offense, other violations provided for by law. Although the Supreme Court is authorized to hold a previlegiatum forum but no further rules govern explicitly whether previlegiatum forums include courts to dismiss from office. The amendment of the 1945 Constitution regulates the impeachment of the President and / or Vice President by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) on the initiative of the House of Representatives (DPR) 's House of Representatives's (DPR) proposal which has been decided by the Constitutional Court (MK). It can be said that Indonesia is currently adopting a mixed model, namely impeachment (DPR), previlegiatum forum (MK), and impeachment (MPR). The grounds on which the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President has been declared in a limited manner include: treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes, disgraceful acts, or no longer qualifying as President and / or Vice President. The power of Parliament (legislature) as a political institution is considered inappropriate to impose a decision on the basis of political opinions and verification. On the basis of such thoughts, in Indonesia emerged the Constitutional Court that plays a role in the mechanism of impeachment of the President and / or Vice President. Jimly Asshiddiqie argues that in the case of legal liability for criminal offenses, there are two sects of the constitution, which hold the previlegiatum forum and not. However, more countries that view this as unrealistic and then prefer to settle through the process of constitutional justice first then followed the ordinary criminal justice process after the impeachment. Suwoto Mulyosudarmo holds that if after no longer serving for dismissal, but then through the ordinary criminal court concerned is not proven guilty, then he cannot return to serve as President, because the decision to grant the impeachment is still valid. Regardless of the existing polemics, the Constitution after the amendment has legitimized the Constitutional Court as a branch of the judicial power to participate in the mechanism of impeachment of the President and / or Vice President by the DPR and MPR. With the legal control in the mechanism of impeachment of the President and / or Vice President will be a counterweight to political control by parliament for the realization of good governance. 4. CONCLUSIONS Before the amendment, the 1945 Constitution does not accommodate the impeachment of the President and / or Vice President, but only regulates the succession of state leadership. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 880 editor@iaeme.com

Faisal Arif and Galang Prayogo Presidential impeachment at that time is set at the level of the Decision of the People's Consultative Assembly (TAP MPR) that violates the state policy, in addition to the absence of settimngs of vice-presidential impeachment. In addition, there is no mechanism to examine the truth of the opinion of the People's Legislative Assembly which states that the President is seriously violating the state's direction to make the opinion only as a mere political opinion which can then demand the President to convey accountability to the MPR ultimately determining whether the liabilities conveyed lead to impeachment or not. After the amendment, 1945 Constitution accommodates the impeachment provisions of the President and / or Vice President. The reasons for impeachment are set limitatively in Article 7A if they are proven to violate the law in the form of treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious criminal offenses or disgraceful acts or if proven to no longer qualify as President and / or Vice President. The criminal act of state treason is a criminal act against state security, including those set forth in the Criminal Code which include treason, criminal acts against state ideology, rebellion, conspiracy, relations with foreign countries, state secrecy, crimes concerning buildings and defense equipment, in diplomatic negotiations, wartime-related crimes, crimes related to enemy spies. The Dismissal Mechanism is accommodated by the constitution in article 7B involving 3 (three) institutions, namely DPR, MK and MPR. Criminal acts of treason against the state are accommodated in the Criminal Code 104-129, while the concept lies in chapters 220-262 with chapters of crime against state security with similar editors only on the concept of many special minimal sanctions, several categories of fines and the inclusion of acts criminal terrorism into it, while the United States accommodates treason against the state within its constitution. Thus, it is suggested that when the President or Vice President should be indicted by the House of Representatives, the person will be temporarily disabled for 60-120 days, during which time the assignee will be appointed. REFERENCES [1] Breyer, S. G. (1995). Judicial Independence in the United States.. Louis ULJ, 40, 989. [2] Bushnell, E. (1992). Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials. University of Illinois Press. [3] Draft of the Academic Paper of the Criminal Code Draft, National Legal Development Board of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia. [4] Gerhardt, M. J. (2000). The federal impeachment process: A constitutional and historical analysis. University of Chicago Press. [5] Gunther, G. (1974). Judicial Hegemony and Legislative Autonomy: The Nixon Case and the Impeachment Process. UCLA L. Rev., 22, 30. [6] Hakim, F. (2017). The Influence of Non-Performing Loan and Loan to Deposit Ratio on the Level of Conventional Bank Health in Indonesia. Arthatama: Journal of Business Management and Accounting, 1(1). [7] Heflin, H. T. (1987). The Impeachment Process: Modernizing an ArchaicSystem. Judicature, 71, 123. [8] Law Number 24 of 2003 Regarding the Constitutional Court. [9] McConnell, M. (1987). Reflections on the Senate's Role in the Judicial Impeachment Process and Proposals for Change. Ky. LJ, 76, 739. [10] Regulation of Constitutional Court. 21 of 2009 on Guidelines for Procedure in Dismissing the Opinion of the House of Representatives Concerning Alleged Violations by the President and / or Vice President. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 881 editor@iaeme.com

The Arrangements and Mechanisms of Impeachment to the President and Vice President on the Ground of Betrayal of State from the Good Governance Framework: A Study of Post Amendment Indonesian Constitution [11] Research Report, Impeachment Mechanism and Procedural Law of the Constitutional Court, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Jakarta. 2005. [12] Rosenn, K. S., & Downes, R. (Eds.). (1999). Corruption and political reform in Brazil: the impact of Collor's impeachment. North-South Center Press. [13] Sedarmayanti, Good Governance: Part Two. Building a Performance Manahemen System To Increase Productivity Towards Good Governance. Bandung: Mandar Maju. 2004 [14] Sinaga, Budiman N. P. D. Sinaga, Constitutional Law, Amendment of the Constitution, Jakarta: PT. Tatanusa. 2009 [15] Soimin, Impeachment of President and Vice President in Indonesia. Yogyakarta: UII Press. 2009. [16] Souza, B. A., Almeida, T. G., Menezes, A. A., Nakamura, F. G., Figueiredo, C., & Nakamura, E. F. (2016, November). For or against?: Polarity analysis in tweets about impeachment process of brazil president. In Proceedings of the 22nd Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web (pp. 335-338). ACM. [17] Thalib, Abdul Rasyid, Constitutional Court Authority and Implications in the State System of the Republic of Indonesia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti. 2006 [18] Wijaya, Some Considerations of the Actual Problems Related to Good Corporate Governance, and the Impetus for Law Enforcement. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(9), 2017, pp. 867 873 [19] Munawarah, Cici Widowati Harjum Muharam and Muhamm ad Din, State Ownership and Corporate Governance: An Empirical Study of State Owned Enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp. 951 960. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 882 editor@iaeme.com