scholarly journals Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Terhadap Putusan Bebas

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hapit Suhandi
Keyword(s):  
State Government ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Main Requirement ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code

AbstractThis legal research aims to determine the reasons for the convicted perpetrators of criminal acts in filing legal remedies for judicial review in an acquittal. The rules regarding the reasons for filing a judicial review are contained in Article 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The main requirement for filing legal remedies for judicial review is in Article 263 paragraph (1), namely that the court's decision must be legally binding. Then Article 263 paragraph (2) explains the material reasons for filing a legal reconsideration effort. The reason the convicted person filed a judicial review is in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (2) letter c, the Cassation decision clearly shows a judge's mistake or an obvious mistake. The review is carried out by the prosecutor / public prosecutor as a legal breakthrough in an effort to obtain justice and truth due to new circumstances (novum), or mistakes or mistakes of judges and / or decisions that contradict one another. The Attorney General / Public Prosecutor does not use the cassation for the sake of the law which is his right and prefers to file a review. The Indonesian State Government System, as contained in the explanation of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia is a state based on law (Rechtsstaat), not based on mere power (Machtsstaa). In this study using qualitative research methods, with a normative juridical approach. The results of this study, the study used normative legal research in which data collection was carried out through literature study and interviews with several sources, which were then analyzed qualitatively. The results of this study conclude that the prosecutor / public prosecutor filed a review on the legal basis of the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provisions of Article 68 paragraph (1) of Law Number 3 of 2009 and the provisions of Article 24 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009. Keywords: Reconsideration, Free Decision, Legal Remedies

scholarly journals Legal Remedies for Judicial Review for Investigators of Pretrial Decisions Regarding the Invalidity of the Order to Terminate the Investigation in the Perspective of Law Enforcement with Certainty

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 355
Author(s):  
Eko Wiyono ◽  
I Nyoman Nurjaya ◽  
Prija Djatmika ◽  
Bambang Sugiri
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Future

Arrangements regarding legal remedies that can be submitted by investigators against the judge's decision regarding investigative actions in the form of terminating the investigation with the issuance of an Investigation Termination Order (SP3) in pretrial cases. Law No. 8/1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code was not expressly enforced. This article aims to identify legal remedies against pretrial decisions regarding the invalidity of the Termination of Investigation Order (SP3) in the future. This paper is normative legal research, namely the process of finding legal rules, legal principles, and legal doctrines to address legal issues at hand. The result of this study is the arrangements regarding extraordinary legal remedies in the form of a judicial review of criminal decisions that have permanent legal force and are not acquitted or released from all previous legal claims before the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code that have been regulated can also be submitted by interested parties. Necessary to reconstruct the regulation of legal remedies against pretrial decisions, especially extraordinary legal remedies in the form of reconsideration, especially by investigators as parties who are very interested in the action.

scholarly journals Implementation of Extraordinary Review (Pk) For the Public Prosecutors after the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 33/Puu-Xiv/2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (06) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahmadianto Andra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Right

The background of this paper is inspired and triggered to observe and study the legal uncertainty between the public prosecutor and the convict/his heirs regarding the authority to submit a PK Application as regulated in Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The article states "the right of the public prosecutor" to apply for a PK application. However, what is expected by the Petitioner's wife is that Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be interpreted in this way, "PK applications can only be filed by the convicted person or their heirs". This condition was exacerbated by the issuance of the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/ 2016 regarding "the right of the public prosecutor to file a PK application in a criminal case". This study aims to determine the application of extraordinary legal remedies by the public prosecutor and the implications of implementing these extraordinary remedies. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed the application of extraordinary PK legal remedies for the public prosecutor after the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/2016, had direct implications for the Petitioner and his family. This implication is detrimental to the Petitioners' constitutional rights based on Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution because the protection of personal, family, honor and dignity has clearly been lost. It is better if the Constitutional Court reaffirms the legal principles in the article through constitutional interpretation which is an integral part that is not separate from the article in question and is able to provide fair legal certainty.

DISCRETION, NOLLE PROSEQUI AND THE 1992 GHANAIAN CONSTITUTION

2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
KWADWO BOATENG MENSAH
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Control ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
Orthodox Theory ◽  
Orthodox View

Section 54 of Ghana's Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), gives the Attorney-General discretion to enter a nolle prosequi in the course of a criminal trial. According to the orthodox view, this discretionary power is not subject to judicial review. The orthodox view raises a number of very important questions. First, is it really the case that the power to enter a nolle prosequi is not subject to judicial review? Secondly, if this is the case, how is the Attorney-General accountable for the manner in which he exercises his discretion and how is it possible to ensure that he acts fairly when he enters a nolle prosequi? This article challenges the orthodox theory and advocates a theory based on legal accountability. The proposed theory is founded on the view that accountability and fairness—which are central constituents of good governance—will be enhanced if the discretion to enter a nolle prosequi is subject to legal control. The paper goes on to show that the legal accountability theory is supported by article 296 of the 1992 Ghanaian Constitution and that it also conforms to practices found in other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Canada, Fiji and Australia.

scholarly journals LEGALITAS PEMERIKSAAN SIDANG PERKARA PIDANA MELALUI MEDIA TELECONFERENCE DI MASA PANDEMI COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 481-505
Author(s):  
Faisal Cahyadi ◽  
Hilda Restu Utami
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Procedure Code

AbstractThe focus of this research is to identify regulations governing the implementation of criminal case trials using teleconference media in Indonesia and to analyze the legality of these trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research is a normative legal research. Legal materials are obtained through literature study and interviews with legal practitioners, then processed qualitatively. Based on the results, the author obtained two conclusions. First, regulation of criminal case trials using teleconference media in Indonesia has been regulating in several laws in Indonesia. Second, the implementation of the trial during the COVID-19 pandemic, which required the defendant to remain in prison, was contrary to the principle of the defendant's presence at trial as regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code. Besides, the legal-based in the form of a circular cannot override the Criminal Procedure Code. Meanwhile, the legal umbrella in the form of an agreement is not appropriate considering its dimensions are private and only bind the parties. Keywords:criminal trials, teleconference, the COVID-19 pandemic AbstrakFokus pembahasan penelitian ini adalah mengidentifikasi peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur pelaksanaan sidang teleconference di Indonesia dan menganalisis legalitas persidangan perkara pidana yang memanfaatkan media teleconference di masa pandemi COVID-19. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif. Bahan hukum diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dengan praktisi hukum yang kemudian diolah secara kualitatif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, Penulis memperoleh dua kesimpulan. Pertama, pemeriksaan sidang perkara pidana melalui media teleconference di Indonesia sudah diatur dalam beberapa peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Kedua, pelaksanaan persidangan tersebut di masa pandemi COVID-19 yang mengharuskan terdakwa tetap berada di Rutan/Lapas bertentangan dengan asas kehadiran terdakwa di persidangan sebagaimana diatur oleh KUHAP. Selain itu, payung hukum berupa surat edaran bukan merupakan peraturan perundang-undangan sehingga tidak dapat mengenyampingkan KUHAP. Sedangkan, payung hukum berupa perjanjian kerja sama tidaklah tepat mengingat dimensinya yang bersifat privat dan hanya mengikat para pihak. Kata Kunci:persidangan pidana, teleconference, pandemi COVID-19

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Peninjauan Kembali yang Diajukan oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum Terhadap Putusan Lepas dari Segala Tuntutan Hukum

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-151
Author(s):  
M. Jordan Pradana ◽  
Syofyan Nur ◽  
Erwin Erwin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Logical Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Rules

ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui secara yuridis terhadap kedudukan Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam mengajukan upaya hukum Peninjauan Kembali kepada Mahkamah Agung. Peninjauan Kembali berdasarkan Pasal 263 ayat (1) hanya dapat dilakukam oleh terpidana atau ahli waris terpidana, namun pada kenyataannya Jaksa Penuntut Umum pernah mengajukan permintaan Peninjauan Kembali dan diterima oleh Mahkamah Agung. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif yaitu pendekatan yang menggunakan konsep logis positivis yang menyatakan bahwa hukum adalah identik dengan norma-norma tertulis yang dibuat dan diundang oleh lembaga-lembaga atau pejabat yang berwenang. Hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa terdapat kekosongan norma hukum mengenai kedudukan Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam mengajukan permintaan Peninjauan Kembali dan menyarankan dibentuknya aturan khusus mengenai kedudukan Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam mengajukan peninjauan kembali. Kesimpulan yaitu Sesuai dengan Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak berhak mengajukan peninjauan kembali, karena yang berhak mengajukan peninjauan kembali hanya terpidana dan ahli warisnya dan peninjauan kembali tidak bisa dilakukan terhadap putusan bebas atau putusan lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum dan diperlukan aturan khusus mengenai peninjauan kembali yang diajukan oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum, sehingga terwujudnya keadilan, kepastian hukum, dan kemanfaatan hukum. ABSTRACT This study aims to find out juridically about the position of the public prosecutor in filing legal remedies for judicial review to the Supreme Court. A review based on Article 263 paragraph (1) can only be carried out by the convict or the convict's heirs, but in reality the Public Prosecutor has submitted a request for reconsideration and was accepted by the Supreme Court. The method used in this research is normative research, which is an approach that uses a positivist logical concept which states that law is identical to written norms made and invited by authorized institutions or officials. The results of the study show that there is a vacuum in legal norms regarding the position of the Public Prosecutor in submitting a request for reconsideration and suggesting the formation of special rules regarding the position of the Public Prosecutor in filing a review. The conclusion is that in accordance with Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor has no right to file a review, because only the convict and his heirs are entitled to apply for a review and the review cannot be carried out against an acquittal or a decision to be released from all lawsuits and regulations are required. specifically regarding the review submitted by the Public Prosecutor, so that justice, legal certainty and legal benefits can be realized.

scholarly journals UPAYA HUKUM YANG DILAKUKAN KORBAN KEJAHATAN DIKAJI DARI PERSPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Lilik Mulyadi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

Positive Legal Indonesia provides protection against crime victims who are not directly in the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, as well as outside the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. Later in the Code of Criminal Procedure formulatif policies and by laws to understanding the victim used different terminology, namely the complainant, the complainant, witnesses, interested third parties and the injured party. In practice, the request made by the applicant with the PK as the quality of the witnesses, interested third parties, the Legal Adviser or by the Public Prosecutor and apparently only remedy reconsideration made by the Public Prosecutor and Third Party concerned (Judicial Review Decision No. 4 PK / PID/2000 November 28 2001), which was granted by the Supreme Court while the petition for judicial review filed applicant witnesses (Judicial Review Decision No. 11 PK/PID/2003 August 6, 2003), or the reporting witness stated by the Supreme Court was not accepted by because the applicant is not qualified to appeal judicial review. From the theoretical dimension turns doing different interpretations of the Supreme Court as provided Art. 263 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Code that the applicant is granted a judicial review conducted by the Public Prosecutor and the Third Party concerned on the one hand while on the other side of the applicant's application for judicial review of quality reporting victims or witnesses can not be accepted. Keywords: remedies, victims of crime, judicial review

scholarly journals Policy Formulations of the Fisheries Criminal Act: An Investigation of the Authority of the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Deassy J. A. Hehanussa ◽  
Koesno Adi ◽  
Masruchin Ruba’i ◽  
Pridja Djatmika
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Servant ◽  
Maritime Security ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
National Police

Law enforcement implementation of fisheries criminal act especially for investigation based on Article 73 (1) of Law No. 45 of 2009 is executed by Fishery Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), Investigator of Indonesian Navy officer and/or Investigator of Indonesian National Police. This investigation authority is called as attribution authority meaning that the authority is granted by the order of law. This regulation grants the same authority to these three institutions to investigate and submit their investigation report to public prosecutor without any cohesive system in its implementation. If it is linked to Law No. 8 of 1981 as an illustration of criminal justice system of Indonesia which is referred as the basis of common and specific criminal law enforcement, it emerges juridical weakness as a consequence of regulation inconsistency including conflict of norm between Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Fisheries Act. This inconsistency emerges conflict of authority among those investigators and emerges law indeterminacy. Hence, reformulate investigation authority of fisheries criminal act needs to be conducted along with paying attention on waters territory of Indonesia upon Law No. 6 of 1996 about Waters Territory of Indonesia despite law enforcement mechanism which had to be enforced corporately. This study result concludes that inconsistency of investigation authority formulation in fisheries criminal act in criminal justice system not only emerges fuzziness of norm but also conflict of norm between Law No. 8 of 1981 about Criminal Procedure Code and Law No. 45 of 2009. This emerges because there is an overlapping of investigation authority among 3 institutions, i.e., Fishery Civil Servant, Indonesian Navy and the Police. Formation team of Indonesian Maritime Security Coordinating Board (Bakorkamla) only has an authority as coordinating function. Hence, to maximize the law enforcement in the ocean, function of Indonesian Maritime Security Coordinating Board should be improved as a coordinator of law enforcement in ocean territory of Indonesia.

scholarly journals Separate Filing (Splitsing) In Criminal Case Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Hidayat Abdulah
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Court Process

In the implementation of the criminal case handling a lot of things that can be done to perfect evidence is the failure by one of them is doing a separate filing (splitsing). In Article 142 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the public prosecutor has the authority to separate docket (splitsing) against each defendant if found lacking evidence and testimony, as well as other matters that are not included in the provisions of Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Separation of the case must be based on solely the purpose of examination. That's what makes the public prosecutor has the authority to determine the case file should be separated (splitsing) or not. The purpose for doing the separation of the case file (splitsing) is to facilitate the enforcement of the prosecutor when the court process, to strengthen the evidence for lack of evidence when the process of verification, then a criminal offense committed by the offender more than one and the same time one of these actors into the search list (DPO) which allow splitsing.Keywords: Separate Filing; The Criminal Case.

scholarly journals Gugurnya Hak Menuntut Terhadap Korporasi Akibat Pailit

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audaraziq Ismail ◽  
Eva Achjani Zulfa ◽  
Yutcesyam Yutcesyam ◽  
Fatiatulo Lazira
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Bankruptcy Code

Prosecution is basically an action by the public prosecutor to delegate a criminal case to the competent District Court so that it is examined and decided by a judge in a court session. With regard to prosecution, Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that there are 3 reasons for stopping prosecution, namely that an event is not a criminal act, there is not enough evidence collected by investigators to prove the fulfillment of the elements in a criminal act and for the sake of law. The Criminal Code, First, with regard to the application of the principle of ne bis in idem. Second, if the Defendant dies, Third, Expires, Fourth, Settlement outside the court, Article 82 of the Criminal Code has described if an offense is threatened with a fine only, then prosecution can be avoided by paying the maximum fine directly. Against corporations, prosecution is limited by a number of provisions, in this case also including when the corporation is bankrupt. That as a result, if the entire corporate assets are included in the bankruptcy code, there will be a transfer of corporate licenses and an impact on the liquidation process. Thus, based on the provisions of Article 142 paragraph (1) of Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the corporation is dissolved. Thus, the prosecution of the bankrupt corporation can be dropped.

scholarly journals Analisis Keabsahan Pembacaan Putusan Pidana yang Dibacakan Secara Virtual atau Elektronik

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 2161
Author(s):  
Angelia Dwi Oktavia
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Multimedia Technology ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Laws And Regulations

AbstractThe use of teleconferencing facilities in courts in Indonesia is actually not an absolute new thing. Long before, the model for examining witnesses with the help of multimedia technology was first carried out in 2002. However, teleconferencing has not been recognized in the Criminal Procedure Code, because at the time the Act was enacted it could not be practiced. Regarding reading the decision by teleconference, there has also been no reading regarding whether it is legal or not. The formulation of the problem reviewed in this study is whether reading a criminal verdict read out virtually or electronically is against Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The research method used is legal research with an approach and an approach to laws and regulations to examine existing legal problems. The results of this research can be seen that reading a criminal reading that is read out virtual or electronically does not conflict with Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code because it refers to the principle of Salus Polupi Suprema lex Esto and refers to the relevant laws.Keywords: Trial; Teleconference; Decision.AbstrakPenggunaan sarana teleconference di dalam persidangan di Indonesia sebenarnya bukan merupakan hal yang mutlak baru. Jauh sebelumnya, model pemeriksaan saksi dengan bantuan teknologi multimedia pertama kali dilakukan pada tahun 2002. Tetapi teleconference belum diakui dalam Kitab Undang-Undang¬ Hukum Acara Pidana, karena pada masa Undang-Undang dibuat hal demikian itu tidak dapat dipraktikkan. Terkait dengan pembacaan putusan pidana secara teleconference juga belum ada kejelasan terkait sah atau tidaknya. Rumusan masalah yang diulas dalam penelitian ini adalah apakah pembacaan putusan pidana yang dibacakan secara virtual atau elektronik bertentangan dengan Pasal 195 KUHAP. Mmetode penelitian yang digunakan adalah legal research dengan melalui pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan untuk mengkaji permasalahan hukum yang ada. Hasil dari penelitian tersebut dapat diketahui bahwa pembacaan putusan pidana yang dibacakan secara virtual atau elektronik tidak bertentangan dengan Pasal 195 KUHAP karena mengacu kepada asas Salus Polupi Suprema lex Esto serta mengacu kepada Undang-Undang yang terkait.Kata Kunci: Persidangan; Teleconference; Putusan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document