Legal Analysis of Procedure Violations in The Investigation Process Regarding The Validity of Court Decisions in Criminal Cases (Case Study of Case Number 35/Pid.Sus/2025/Pn Spt at The Sampit District Court)

Abstract

This research is motivated by the persistent occurrence of procedural violations in criminal investigations in Indonesia, which has implications for the validity of subsequent criminal justice processes. One case that warrants close examination is Case Number 35/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Spt at the Sampit District Court, in which there are allegations of investigative procedural violations, including the examination of the suspect without the assistance of legal counsel and a house search conducted without the permission of the Chairman of the District Court, as well as the late submission of the search authorization request. The research questions in this study are: (1) What are the forms of procedural violations in the investigation process that occurred in Case Number 35/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Spt at the Sampit District Court?; and (2) How do the procedural violations in the investigation process affect the validity of the court decision in Case Number 35/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Spt at the Sampit District Court? This research uses normative legal research with statutory, historical, and case approaches. The data used is secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection is conducted through library research and analyzed qualitatively using Gustav Radbruch's theory of legal purpose, the theory of due process of law, and the theory of integrated criminal justice system as analytical tools. The results show that: First, the forms of procedural violations in the investigation in Case Number 35/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Spt include the examination of the Defendant at the investigation level without the assistance of legal counsel, which contravenes Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the conduct of a house search without the permission of the Chairman of the District Court as required in Article 33 KUHAP, and the late submission of the search authorization request which exceeds the “prompt” time period interpreted by Constitutional Court Decision Number 3/PUU-XI/2013 as no more than 7 (seven) days. Second, the procedural violations in the investigation process conceptually affect the validity of the court decision because they weaken the evidentiary force of the obtained evidence, violate the principle of due process of law, and cause inconsistencies in the integrated criminal justice system; however, in practice, the panel of judges in the case at hand chose to ignore the Legal Counsel's objection on the grounds that it had been considered in the interlocutory decision.