Main Article Content

Abstract

Determination of suspects has an important role in the scope of criminal law in Indonesia because this stage aims to find material truth. The rights of suspects are fundamental rights because they relate to deprivation of a person's independence, so that the state is obliged to protect these rights from potential abuse of power by law enforcement officials during the legal process. This study aims to examine the urgency of expanding the authority of pretrial judges in ordering the determination of suspects by law enforcement officials based on legal considerations by judges in pretrial decisions number 24/Pid.Pra/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel and the Indonesian criminal justice system. Research is reviewed using normative methods which are analyzed through statutory and conceptual approaches. The results of the research show that first, in his consideration the judge has exceeded his authority because the decision has entered the subject matter. Second, based on philosophical, sociological and juridical foundations, there is no urgency to expand the authority of pretrial judges. Philosophically, pretrial is limited to examining formal law. Sociologically, the expansion of authority has the potential to lead to the arbitrariness of judges in determining a person's legal status. Juridically, the order to determine the suspect has exceeded the authority of the pretrial judge.

Keywords

Urgency expanding authority pretrial

Article Details

Author Biography

Jennifer Editha, Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia, Indonesia

 

 

References

  1. Abdul Aziz Hakim, Negara Hukum dan Demokrasi di Indonesia, Ctk. Pertama, Pustaka

  2. Pelajar, Yogyakarta, 2011.

  3. Anang  Shophan  Tornado,  Reformasi  Praperadilan  di  Indonesia,  Penerbit  Nusa  Media, Bandung, 2019.

  4. Hartono, Penyidikan dan Penegakan Hukum Pidana Melalui Pendekatan Hukum Progresif,

  5. Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2010.

  6. Lilik  Mulyadi,  Putusan  Hakim  Dalam  Hukum  Acara  Pidana,  PT.  Citra  Aditya  Abadi, Bandung, 2007.

  7. Luhut M.P, Hukum Acara Pidana Surat-surat resmi di Pengadilan Oleh Advokat, Djambatan, Jakarta, 2008.

  8. M. Yahya Harahap, Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2012. Mien  Rukmini,  Perlindungan  HAM  melalui  Asas  Praduga  Tidak  Bersalah  dan  Asas

  9. Persamaan Keududukan Dalam Hukum Pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia, PT. Alumni, Bandung, 2003.

  10. Moh Taufik Makarao dan Suharsil,  Hukum  Acara Pidana Dalam Teori Praktek, Ghalia Indonesia, Bogor, 2014.

  11. Muhammad Erwin, Filsafat Hukum, Raja Grafindo, Jakarta, 2012,

  12. Natsir Asnawi, Hermeneutika Putusan Hakim, UII Press, Yogyakarta, 2014.

  13. S. Tanusubroto, Peranan Pra-Peradilan Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana, Alumni, Bandung, 1983.

  14. Soerjono Soekanto dan Sri Mamudji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat, Raja Grafindo Persaja, Jakarta, 2003.

  15. Sudikno  Mertokusumo,  Penemuan  Hukum  Sebuah  Pengantar,  Universitas  Atma  Jaya Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 1996.

  16. Zainal Arifin Husein, Kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia, Setara Press, Malang, 2016.

  17. Bahran, “Penetapan Tersangka Menurut Hukum Acara Pidana Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia”, Jurnal Hukum, Edisi No.2 Vol. 17, Fakultas Syariah UIN Antasari.

  18. Otti Ilham Khair, “Analisis Landasan Filosofis, Sosiologis dan Yuridis Pada Pembentukan Undang-Undang Ibukota Negara,” Jurnal Hukum, Edisi No.1, Vol. 2, Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Pemerintahan Abdi Negara.

  19. Undang-Undang KPK Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang- Undangan.

  20. Undang-Undang Nomor 18 tahun 1981 tentang KUHAP.

  21. Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman.

  22. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri (Putusan Praperadilan) No.24/Pid.Pra/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel.