This paper aimed to discuss the legal politics of regulating narcotics and illegal drugs in Indonesia. Using normative legal research methods, this normative legal research focuses on an inventory of positive law, legal principles and doctrines, legal findings in cases in concreto, legal systematics, comparative law, and legal history. The writing of this scientific paper uses primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. Primary legal materials are in the form of laws and regulations related to the issues raised, including Law No. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. Secondary legal materials are materials that explain primary legal materials, such as law books. The results of the research are supported by the opinions of legal experts (doctrine), as well as legal journals related to this research, among others, that narcotics legal politics is the main point in forming a legal system in the form of laws and regulations that regulate criminal acts as described above, Articles 111, 112 has a reasonably heavy prison sentence, which is a minimum of 4 years, and a maximum sentence of 20 years, even the death penalty.

Nowadays, corruption is still the most and biggest problem facing by

Part of the Tanjungpinang area is a free trade area and a free port. Placing some of these areas makes it difficult to supervise the traffic of goods, especially the excisable goods of the type of cigarettes, plus in the case of law enforcement, none of these excise crimes have been brought to court. Bintan free port. The method used in this research is sociological juridical method. Or what is known as empirical. Based on this research, it can be concluded that in law enforcement, the imposition of sanctions must pay attention to several things that become one unit, namely people's ignorance of the prohibited items, the number of items in a small number and not a repetition of the same criminal act. The granting of excise exemption quotas for excisable goods types of cigarettes for public consumption must be taken into account of the urgency of this.

Tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia saat ini telah menjadi kejahatan serius. Pengembalian harta kekayaan Negara diupayakan dengan cara penerapan pidana tambahan berupa pembayaran pidana uang pengganti. Dalam rangka mengoptimalkan pelasanaan pembayaran uang pengganti Mahkamah Agung telah menerbitkan Perma Uang Pengganti dalam rangka memberikan pemahaman yang sama kepada penegak hukum khususnya Hakim dalam penerapan Perma Uang Pengganti kepada Terdakwa Korupsi. Permasalahan dalam artikel ini, yaitu: bagaimanakah penerapan Perma Uang Pengganti dalam Putusan Hakim bagi Terdakwa tindak pidana korupsi. Metode pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Tipe penelitiannya adalah deskriptif dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa Hakim dalam memutuskan pidana uang pengganti telah menerapkan sebagian ketentuan Perma Uang Pengganti, namun penerapan tersebut belum merata tertuang dalam setiap putusan hakim.

Finance and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) is one of the institutions stipulated in Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 192 of 2014 in charge of organizing government affairs in the field of state/ regional financial supervision and national development. This research raises several problems which include: First, what is the form of regulation of BPKP’s authority in legislation related to audits in calculating state financial losses in the case of corruption crime. Second, how is the legal standing of the BPKP Representative of West Sumatra Province in calculating state financial losses in the decision Number: 31/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN Pdg on behalf of the defendant Vera Aldilla Roza, ST related to corruption crime in Padang District Court. This is a normative juridical research which applied an approach to legislation (statute approach) and to the case (case approach). This research used a technique in the form of a library study that utilized primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The legal materials were then analyzed qualitatively to answer the problems discussed in this research. Based on the results of the research, it was concluded that the legal standing of BPKP was in the executive power. In this case, the regulation of authority related to calculating state financial losses contained in the legislation, i.e. Presidential Regulation No. 192 of 2014 concerning BPKP. In addition, this authority was strengthened by the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 31/PUU-X/2012 dated October 23, 2012. The legal standing of BPKP, in calculating state financial losses in the case of procurement of medical devices at Health Office of Pesisir Selatan Regency, was as auditor. The judge was guided by the calculation of state financial losses carried out by BPKP and used it as a basis for consideration of decisions.