Juridical Study of Reforming the Criminal Procedural Law System regarding Pretrial Institutions after Constitutional Court Decision in Indonesia

Nurbaedah Nurbaedah

Abstract


This study examines the problem of reforming the criminal procedural law system regarding pretrial institutions in Indonesia after the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 21/PUU-XII/2014. The purpose of this study is to analyze in an effort to reform the criminal procedural law system regarding pretrial institutions in Indonesia. This research method uses normative legal research. The results of this study describe that the changes in the Criminal Procedure Law System Regarding Pretrial Institutions in Indonesia after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 are the scope of pretrial examination is not only limited to whether or not an arrest, detention, termination of investigation or termination of prosecution is legal; compensation and or rehabilitation for a person whose criminal case is terminated at the level of investigation or prosecution; whether or not the determination of a suspect, confiscation and search is valid, but also has the authority to test whether the investigation is legal or not, in the case that the case being investigated has ne bis in idem elements, the case being investigated has an error in persona, the case being investigated is strongly suspected of being a criminalization. Examination material in pretrial cases is not only on procedural law enforcement actions, but can enter case material so that a simple, fast, and low-cost trial can be well integrated in the criminal procedural law system. The pretrial institution as a control function can concretely guarantee the balance of rights of Indonesian citizens who are in contact with criminal cases, both as investigators, witnesses, and suspects.

Keywords


Legal Reform; Judge’s Decision; Criminal Events System

Full Text:

PDF

References


Journals:

Azzahra, Farida. “Pemberlakuan Sanksi Administratif: Bentuk Upaya Paksa Meningkatkan Kepatuhan Pejabat Atas Pelaksanaan Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (Teori Efektivitas Hukum).†Binamulia Hukum 9, no. 2 (December 16, 2020): 127–40. https://doi.org/10.37893/jbh.v9i2.122.

Giurgi, Eduard. “Error in Persona (Dibattito Sul Concetto Di Persona Nella Trattazione Dell’ Error Facti. Analisi Della Dottrina e Della Giursiprudenza).†The Jurist: Studies in Church Law and Ministry 72, no. 2 (2012): 668–69. https://doi.org/10.1353/jur.2012.0060.

Hasim, Hasanuddin. “Gagasan Muatan Materi dalam Perubahan UUD 1945.†Al-’Adl 10, no. 2 (2017): 83–97. https://doi.org/10.31332/aladl.v10i2.701.

Isra, Saldi. “TITIK SINGGUNG WEWENANG MAHKAMAH AGUNG DENGAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI.†Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 4, no. 1 (March 31, 2015): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.1.2015.17-30.

Itasari, Endah Rantau. “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Penyandang Disabilitas Di Kalimantan Barat.†Integralistik 31, no. 2 (August 18, 2020): 70–82. https://doi.org/10.15294/integralistik.v32i2.25742.

Karuniawan, Fathony. “Konsep Whistleblower Dan Justice Collaborator Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi.†Jatiswara 32, no. 2 (November 21, 2017). http://www.jatiswara.unram.ac.id/index.php/js/article/view/120.

Kusumastuti, Ely. “Penetapan Tersangka Sebagai Obyek Praperadilan.†Yuridika 33, no. 1 (February 8, 2018): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v33i1.7258.

Mahmud, Ade, Chepi Ali Firman Z, Husni Syawali, Rizki Amrulloh, and Weganisa. “Keadilan Substantif Dalam Proses Asset Recovery Hasil Tindak Pidana Korupsi.†Jurnal Suara Hukum 3, no. 2 (September 30, 2021): 227–50. https://doi.org/10.26740/jsh.v3n2.p227-250.

Metria, Kadek. “Objek Praperadilan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014.†Jatiswara 32, no. 2 (November 21, 2017). http://jatiswara.unram.ac.id/index.php/js/article/view/123.

Nandani, Afrizia Aditya. “TINJAUAN YURIDIS ATAS PUTUSAN PRAPERADILAN DALAM PERKARA NO. 04/Pid.Prap/2015/PN.Jkt.Sel. (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN PRAPERADILAN UNTUK TIDAK SAHNYA STATUS TERSANGKA BUDI GUNAWAN ATAS KASUS KORUPSI).†NOVUM : JURNAL HUKUM 2, no. 2 (October 6, 2015): 107–15. https://doi.org/10.2674/novum.v2i2.13326.

Ngutra, Theresia. “HUKUM DAN SUMBER-SUMBER HUKUM.†SUPREMASI: Jurnal Pemikiran, Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, Hukum Dan Pengajarannya 11, no. 2 (February 14, 2017). https://doi.org/10.26858/supremasi.v11i2.2813.

Sebayang, Sahri. “Praperadilan Sebagai Salah Satu Upaya Perlindungan Hak-Hak Tersangka Dalam Pemeriksaan Di Tingkat Penyidikan (Studi Pengadilan Negeri Medan).†Jurnal Hukum Kaidah: Media Komunikasi Dan Informasi Hukum Dan Masyarakat 19, no. 2 (March 13, 2020): 329–83. https://doi.org/10.30743/jhk.v19i2.2445.

Situmeang, Sahat Maruli Tua, Musa Darwin Pane, and Wahyudi Wahyudi. “Optimalisasi Peran Penegak Hukum Dalam Menerapkan Pidana Kerja Sosial Dan Ganti Rugi Guna Mewujudkan Tujuan Pemidanaan Yang Berkeadilan.†Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM 27, no. 3 (December 15, 2020): 501–25. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol27.iss3.art4.

Sunoto, Bambang, and Jawade Hafidz. “Pendampingan Penasehat Hukum Terhadap Tersangka Dan Terdakwa Dalam Perkara Korupsi (Studi Kasus Wilayah Hukum Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Semarang).†Jurnal Hukum Khaira Ummah 13, no. 1 (March 17, 2018): 297–310.

Suryadi, E. Agus, and H. Supardi. “Mewujudkan Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu Melalui Case Management System (Studi Di Kejaksaan Negeri Kota Bogor).†Jurnal Suara Hukum 3, no. 1 (March 9, 2021): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.26740/jsh.v3n1.p1-25.

Vervaele, John. “Ne Bis In Idem: Towards a Transnational Constitutional Principle in the EU?†Utrecht Law Review 9, no. 4 (September 26, 2013): 211–29. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.251.

Williams, Ryan C. “The One and Only Substantive Due Process Clause.†The Yale Law Journal 120, no. 3 (2010): 408–512.

Books:

Bachtiar, Bachtiar. Mendesain Penelitian Hukum. Yogyakarta: Deepublish, 2021.

Scholten, Paul. Struktur Ilmu Hukum. Translated by B. Arief Sidharta. 4th ed. Bandung: Alumni, 2013.

Setiadi, Edi, and Kristian Kristian. Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu dan Sistem Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Prenada Media, 2017.

Regulations:

Act No. 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Code.

Act No. 49 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power.

Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia) No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 Concerning Examination of Act No. 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Hukum Acara Pidana [KUHAP])




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/akta.v9i2.21530

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Jurnal Akta

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Akta has been indexed by:

Editorial Office: Jurnal Akta Room 2nd Floor Imam As Syafei Building Faculty of Law Universitas Islam Sultan Agung. Jln. Kaligawe KM. 4, Semarang City, Central Java, Indonesia. Phone +62 24 6583584 Fax +62 24 6582455

Phone: 024-6583584 (574)
Email: jurnalakta@unissula.ac.id

Creative Commons License

JURNAL AKTA (eISSN : 2581-2114, pISSN: 2406-9426), This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).