The existence of the death penalty for corruptors in Prevailing Laws is part of efforts to eradicate corruption. Corruption is considered to have become entrenched so that extraordinary efforts are needed to deal with it. The firmness of sanctions is expected to give fear to everyone when they want to commit corruption. There are differences of opinion regarding the provision of the death penalty. To minimize these differences, a philosophical study is needed to understand them. This study uses a normative juridical method with a statutory approach. The data used is secondary data obtained through literature study. The Constitution has explicitly regulated human rights and their limitations. These restrictions are carried out when someone violates the rights of another person. Corruption is a systematic act that harms the wider community. So that the death penalty for corruptors is a form of providing justice to the community. Law enforcement officers must have the courage to apply the death penalty but must be adjusted to the provisions contained in the Legislation.

A participatory society can play an essential role in the prosecution of corruption cases. By providing information on alleged corruption, a participatory community can assist anti-corruption institutions so that corruption as an extraordinary crime can be eradicated as a means of enforcing people's constitutional rights. The authors attempt to perceive things by defending constitutional rights from a societal standpoint, a right of citizens who have had their rights violated by acts of corruption. The method used in this research is a normative legal method that refers to the norms in the laws and regulations, court decisions, and social society.  The data used is secondary data obtained from various sources with appropriate and relevant topics so that it becomes chaotic in discussing related problems. The community's active role in uncovering corruption cases is part of the obligation to break the chain of corruption and fulfil citizens' rights to enforce the law. The amount of budget allocated for disclosing corruption cases is leading the government to protect citizens' constitutional rights from the threat of corruption. Although the handling is still considered unsuccessful because many cases have not been revealed, the efforts made deserve to be recognised.

Bawaslu is tasked with supervising the implementation of Bawaslu and DKPP decisions which must be followed up by KPU. The contrary of that during general elections in 2019 has created complications in the electoral law enforcement system. The research is focused to determine the legal certainty of follow-up to Bawaslu and DKPP decisions and form and scope of Bawaslu’s supervision of the follow-up. This is a qualitative descriptive analytical research with a normative and empirical juridical approach. The results indicate that in the implementation of Bawaslu and DKPP decisions is no legal certainty. The Constitutional Court have statement that the final and binding of DKPP decision applies to KPU, Bawaslu and President and its implementation is monitored by Bawaslu. The Bawaslu Regulation also does not accommodate in detail the mechanism for monitoring the follow-up, so it is necessary to have the regulation specifically.