Pemakzulan presiden merupakan salah satu instrumen dalam sistem pemerintahan demokratis yang bertujuan untuk menjaga akuntabilitas kekuasaan eksekutif Penelitian ini mengkaji problematika pemakzulan presiden di Indonesia berdasarkan konstitusi Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 setelah amandemen, dengan perbandingan pada mekanisme di Amerika Serikat. Pasal 7A dan 7B UUD 1945 menjadi landasan utama pemakzulan di Indonesia, yang menekankan aspek yuridis dalam prosesnya melalui keterlibatan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat. Namun, praktiknya menunjukkan berbagai tantangan, seperti ketidakseimbangan prinsip checks and balances, dominasi kepentingan politik dalam pengambilan keputusan, dan kekosongan hukum acara terkait pemberhentian presiden. Sebagai perbandingan, sistem impeachment di Amerika Serikat yang didasarkan pada Konstitusi 1787 menawarkan pendekatan yang lebih terstruktur dan transparan, dengan peran kongres dan senat yang seimbang dalam menilai pelanggaran berupa pengkhianatan, penyuapan, atau tindak pidana berat. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perbandingan (comparative approach) untuk mengidentifikasi persamaan dan perbedaan dalam kedua sistem. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa mekanisme pemakzulan di Indonesia masih menghadapi kendala serius, seperti dominasi kepentingan politik, ketidakseimbangan checks and balances, serta kekosongan hukum acara yang mengatur teknis pelaksanaan pemakzulan. Mahkamah Konstitusi berperan dalam menilai pelanggaran hukum presiden, tetapi keputusan akhirnya tetap berada di tangan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR), yang berpotensi dipengaruhi oleh dinamika politik. Sementara itu, sistem di Amerika Serikat lebih terstruktur dengan peran kongres dan senat yang berimbang.
Kata Kunci: Pemakzulan Presiden, UUD 1945, Indonesia, Amerika Serikat.

Presidential impeachment is a key mechanism in democratic governance to ensure executive accountability. This study examines the challenges surrounding presidential impeachment in Indonesia under the 1945 Constitution (as amended), and compares them with the impeachment procedures in the United States. Articles 7A and 7B of the Indonesian Constitution provide the legal foundation for impeachment, emphasizing a judicial process involving the House of Representatives, the Constitutional Court, and the People's Consultative Assembly. However, in practice, several issues persist, including an imbalance in the system of checks and balances, the dominance of political interests in decision-making, and the absence of a clear procedural law governing the technical aspects of impeachment. In contrast, the United States impeachment system established by the 1787 Constitution, presents a more structured and transparent process. It involves a balanced role between the House of Representatives and the Senate in addressing serious violations such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This research adopted a normative juridical method with a comparative approach to identify the similarities and differences between the two systems. The findings revealed that Indonesia's impeachment process continues to face significant obstacles, particularly in terms of political influence, the lack of procedural clarity, and the disproportionate power dynamics within its constitutional framework. While the Constitutional Court has the authority to review legal violations committed by the president, the final decision lies with the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), which remains vulnerable to political maneuvering. In contrast, the U.S. system demonstrates a more balanced distribution of authority between its legislative bodies. Keywords: Presidential Impeachment, 1945 Constitution, Indonesia, United States.