Corruption literally can be interpreted as rottenness, ugliness, depravity,
dishonesty can be bribed, immoral, deviation from chastity, words or words that
insult or slander. Article 2 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of
Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of
2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication
of Criminal Acts of Corruption. Therefore, to provide a deterrent effect to corrupt
officials who commit corruption is one of them is the revocation of political rights
in the form of the right to be elected in public office is the implementation of the
application of criminal sanctions that are Extraordinary Enforcement. As regulated
in Article 18 of the Criminal Code which was strengthened in the Constitutional
Court Decision Number 4/PUUVII/2009 (dated March 24, 2009). The purpose of
this study is to obtain data and analyze the basis for consideration of the judge's
decision in imposing additional penalties in the form of revocation of political
rights against convicts of corruption and to find out the elements that the imposition
of additional penalties in the form of revocation of political rights is in accordance
with Article 38 of the Criminal Code. And the type of research used in this study is
normative legal research, namely research that focuses on positive legal norms in
the form of laws and regulations related to the problems studied with the data used,
namely primary legal materials and secondary legal material. The basis for legal
considerations by the assembly against the revocation of political rights, namely
the right to be elected in public office in the Supreme Court's Decision Number
1885 K/Pid.Sus/2015 is not appropriate based on Article 38 of the Criminal Code
where the revocation of political rights does not have a time period or length limit
for the revocation of rights.