scholarly journals Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 130/PUU-XIII/2015 tanggal 11 Januari 2017 oleh Penyidik dan Jaksa Terkait Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan (SPDP) Diwilayah Hukum Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-80
Author(s):  
Eddi Maulizar ◽  
Dahlan Ali ◽  
M. Jafar
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Jurisdiction ◽  
Banda Aceh

Pasal 109 ayat (1) KUHAP menyatakan “dalam hal penyidik telah memulai melakukan penyidikan suatu peristiwa yang merupakan tindak pidana, penyidik memberitahukan hal itu kepada penuntut umum”. Dalam penjelasan pasal ini tidak ditentukan jangka waktu yang pasti kapan Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan (SPDP) harus diserahkan penyidik kepada Jaksa. Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusannya No.130/PUU-XIII/2015 tanggal 11 Januari 2017 menyatakan Pasal 109 ayat (1) KUHAP bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945 serta tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat apabila frasa “penyidik memberitahukan hal itu kepada penuntut umum” tidak dimaknai penyidik wajib memberitahukan dan menyerahkan SPDP kepada penuntut umum, terlapor dan korban dalam waktu paling lambat tujuh hari setelah dikeluarkan surat perintah penyidikan. Tujuan penulisan ini untuk mengetahui implementasi Putusan MK No.130/PUU-XIII/2015 tanggal 11 Januari 2017 terkait SPDP pada Wilayah Hukum Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh. Metode yang digunakan yaitu pendekatan penelitian hukum yuridis empiris dan yuridis normatif, dengan lokasi penelitian pada Kejaksaan Tinggi Aceh dan Kejaksaan Negeri Banda Aceh. Sumber data adalah data primer yang diperoleh dari penelitian lapangan dengan cara wawancara, serta data skunder dengan melakukan penelitian kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan awal implementasinya sering ditemukan penyerahan SPDP yang melebihi waktu tujuh hari sejak diterbitkannya surat perintah penyidikan. Setelah setahun berjalan, penyerahan SPDP melebihi waktu tujuh hari masih ada, tetapi sedikit jumlahnya, bukan karena penyidik telah sepenuhnya menerapkan putusan MK tersebut, akan tetapi selain untuk melaksanakan penegakan hukum, juga untuk menghindari praperadilan yang bisa saja dimohonkan terlapor dan korban.Article 109 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that “in term of the investigator has started the investigation of the case which is a criminal act, the investigator notifies the public prosecutor about it”. In the explanation of this article, there is no definite period of time when the Notification Letter of Commencement of investigation must be submitted by the investigator to the prosecutor. The Constitutional Court in its decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015 of January 11, 2017 stated that Article 109 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force if the phrase “the Investigator notifies the public prosecutor about it” it is not meant that the investigator is obliged to notify and submit SPDP to the public prosecutor, the reported person and the victim no later than seven days after the investigation warrant was issued. The purpose of this study is to understand about the implementation of Constitutional Court Decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015 of January 11, 2017 regarding the SPDP in legal jurisdiction of  Banda Aceh District Court. The purpose of this study is to understand about the implementation of Constitutional Court Decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015 of January 11, 2017 regarding the SPDP in legal jurisdiction of  Banda Aceh District Court. The method used in this research is empirical juridical and normative juridical legal research approach, with the research location at Aceh High Prosecutor's Office and Banda Aceh District Attorney’s office. The sources of data are primary data that is obtained through field research by conducting the interviews and secondary data that is obtained by conducting library research. The results of this study shows that in the initial implementation, it is often found that the submission of the SPDP is more than seven days after the issuance of the investigation warrant. After a year of its implementation, the submission of the SPDP over a seven days period still exists, but few in number, it is not because the investigators have fully implemented the Constitutional Court Decision, however in addition to implementing law enforcement, it is also to avoid pretrial that may be filed by the reported person and victim.

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.

scholarly journals Kajian Yuridis Dasar Hukum Jaksa Penuntut Umum Melakukan Upaya Hukum Kasasi Terhadap Putusan Bebas (Vrijspraak) Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heru Drajat Sulistyo
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Data Types ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code

This study discusses theoretically normative about the appeal made by the Public Prosecutor on the verdict free (vrijspraak) in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System intended to find solutions to the juridical problems arising from the acquittal. The problem in this study, namely: What is the legal basis for the Public Prosecutor to conduct an appeal against the verdict (vrijspraak). The research method used is a normative legal research method and uses secondary data types, including primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials collected through library studies, print media, electronic media. The results of the research study, namely: the legal basis of the Public Prosecutor conducting an appeal against the verdict (vrijspraak) is the Decree of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Indonesia Number M.14-PW.07.03 of 1983 dated December 10, 1983 concerning Supplementary Guidelines for the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code (item 19) . Then the Supreme Court Decree Reg. no: 275 K / Pid / 1983 in the Raden Sonson Natalegawa case was the first decision to be born as jurisprudence for a free verdict after the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 dated March 28, 2013. The existence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 dated March 28, 2013, the public must accept the Public Prosecutor is contested with legal action to appeal against the acquittal (vrijspraak).

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 Mekanisme Penyimpanan dan Pemusnahan Barang Sitaan Narkotika (Studi Kasus Pada Kejaksaan Negeri Badung)

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-319
Author(s):  
I Putu Krisna llham Wiantama ◽  
I Nyoman Gede Sugiartha ◽  
Ida Ayu Putu Widiati
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Public ◽  
Delegation Of Authority ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Force

There are many criminal cases of Narcotics in the jurisdiction of the Badung Prosecutor's Office, the procedure for storing confiscated objects of the State (Rupbasan) is regulated in Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code, then the destruction of confiscated Narcotics is carried out seven days after obtaining a court envoy who has permanent legal force as provisions of Law number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. However, the implementation of this law still appears to be constrained by its implementation in the field. This study aims to explain the legal rules for storing and destroying confiscated Narcotics at the Badung Public Prosecutor's Office and describing the process of storing and destroying confiscated Narcotics at the Badung District Court. This study was designed using a normative method, namely examining library materials in relation to cases through a statutory approach. The data used are primary and secondary data. Data were collected by interviewing and documentation. The results showed the legal rules for the storage of confiscated Narcotics at Kasiswa Badung, according to Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Perka BNN No. 7/2010, while for Destruction is regulated based on SE.IA Number: SE-018 / A / JA / 08/2015 dated 21 August 2015 is one of the legal bases, then the mechanism for storing and destroying confiscated Narcotics objects begins with the acceptance of delegation of authority from investigators to the public prosecutor to District Prosecutor's Office Badung by presenting the defendant and evidence to the District Prosecutor's Office Badung Badung. If the trial process has been completed and has retained legal force, the officer begins to collect and record various confiscated objects that will be destroyed, in this case divided according to the types of confiscated objects.

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 Verbalisan Witness Position as Evidence of a Criminal Case

Ius Poenale ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-86
Author(s):  
M. Kemal Pasha Zahrie
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Justice Practice

The presence of Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUUVIII/2010 expands the meaning of witnesses in Article 1 point 26 of the KUHAP, resulting in the emergence of various interpretations in criminal justice practice concerning the position of verbal witness testimony as evidence. Juridically, the decision creates problems considering that the Criminal Procedure Code or Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) does not recognize verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence. This study examined the position and the strength of verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence in criminal proceedings. After gathering all the data using normative and empirical juridical research, this paper concludes that the testimony of verbal witnesses is grouped in the evidence of guidance in Article 188 Paragraph (1) of the KUHAP because the testimony of verbal witnesses is not primary evidence. After all, its existence is contingent on the judge's willingness to employ it. The strength of proof of testimony of verbal witnesses is that they must satisfy the elements of Article 188 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, namely the information referred to in the form of events or circumstances concerning a criminal act, as well as conformity with other evidence, as required by Article 188 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP.

scholarly journals Eksekusi Pembakaran/Penenggelaman Kapal Tindak Pidana Illegal Fishing Berbendera Asing Dalam Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 752
Author(s):  
Guntur Dirga Saputra
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Illegal Fishing ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Force

Indonesia's natural resources in the form of very wide waters pose a threat to the crime of illegal fishing. The prevention of these crimes is carried out by giving the investigator authority to sink / burn ships with foreign flags directly without a court decision having permanent legal force as regulated in Law 45/2009. This research is a normative legal research. The results of this writing explain that the sinking / burning of foreign-flagged ships by investigators is contrary to Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which is hierarchically higher than Law 45/2009 and SPP regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code so that it does not provide justice and legal certainty because it has seized the rights of the suspect / defendant. The sinking / burning of the ship is the authority of the Public Prosecutor to carry out the execution after a court decision has permanent legal force which stipulates that evidence in the form of a ship is seized for destruction and is not under the authority of the investigator. The government and the DPR RI should revise Law 45/2009 to revoke the authority of investigators who can directly sink / burn ships and to the Prosecutor to coordinate and involve investigators to become witnesses in the execution. Kekayaan alam Indonesia berupa perairan yang sangat luas menimbulkan ancaman terjadinya tindak pidana illegal fishing. Penanggulangan kejahatan tersebut dilakukan dengan memberikan kewenangan kepada penyidik untuk melakukan penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal yang berbendera asing yang secara langsung tanpa putusan pengadilan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap sebagaimana diatur dalam UU 45/2009. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil penulisan ini menjelaskan bahwa Penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal berbendera asing oleh Penyidik bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D Ayat (1) UUDNRI 1945 yang secara hirarki lebih tinggi dari UU 45/2009 dan SPP yang diatur dalam KUHAP sehingga tidak memberikan keadilan dan kepastian hukum oleh karena telah merampas hak tersangka/terdakwa. Penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal merupakan kewenangan Jaksa Penuntut Umum untuk melakukan eksekusi setelah adanya putusan pengadilan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap yang menetapkan barang bukti berupa kapal untuk dirampas untuk dimusnahkan dan bukan merupakan kewenangan penyidik. Pemerintah dengan DPR RI agar melakukan revisi UU 45/2009 untuk mencabut kewenangan penyidik yang secara langsung dapat melakukan penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal dan kepada Jaksa agar melakukan kordinasi dan melibatkan penyidik untuk menjadi saksi dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis Putusan Bebas terhadap Kasus Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-411
Author(s):  
Ramot Lumbantoruan
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Judicial Role

The purpose of this research is to describe the legal arrangements regarding the Free Verdict according to positive legal provisions, the Judicial role of the Judge in deciding a case and Juridical Analysis of a conviction for a murder crime (Study of Judgment Number 423 / Pid / 2008 PN. South Jakarta. This research method is normative juridical research.The nature of this research is descriptive analysis, which is a method used to describe a condition or condition that is happening or ongoing in order to provide as much data as possible about the object of research so as to explore things that are ideal, then analyzed based on legal theory or applicable laws and regulations.Results of this study, first, the legal arrangements regarding the acquittal according to positive legal provisions is to look at Article 191 Paragraph (1), paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically also provides an understanding that reinforces its role law about being free from all lawsuits. Second, the role of judges legally in deciding a case in the decision of Case Decision Number 423 / Pid / 2008 / PN. South Jakarta is a judge must pay attention to the interests of various parties, both the interests of the defendant, witnesses, and the interests of the Public Prosecutor.

scholarly journals Is a public procesutor's investigation more effective than a judicial investigation?

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1183-1202
Author(s):  
Snežana Brkić
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Novi Sad

This paper is the result of a mini empirical research on the duration of judicial and public prosecutorial investigations before the High Court in Novi Sad. A total of 100 cases were analyzed, of which 50 cases from 2008 and 50 cases from 2015 and 2016. The first 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure code from 2001, while the other 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure Code from 2011. In order for the result to be as comparable as possible, we tried to have the same structure of criminal acts represented in both groupes. The author came to the conclusion that a prosecutorial investigation is not faster than a judicial investigation. The search for the suspect, the search for the injured party, the impediment of the lawer, the strike of the lawers, the preoccupation of the public prosecutor, etc. contributed to the somewhat longer duration of the public prosecutorial investigation.

scholarly journals Juridical Analysis of the Acquittal in a Murder Crime

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Chairul Nopriansyah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The judge plays an important role in the judiciary because the judge has the authority to examine, hear and decide on a case so that he is obliged to look for values ​​of justice in the application of progressive and responsive laws, so the judge in issuing decisions must pay attention to various considerations. Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains several elements of judges' considerations when making decisions. In the case of an acquittal, the judge needs carefulness and carefulness to consider so that a matter must be truly convincing. This research is a doctrinal research method that is taking the opinions of experts regarding free decisions and through legal products in the form of legislation and judges' decisions. The conclusion of this paper is First, the basic consideration of the judge in passing a free verdict (vrijspraak) is not fulfilling the minimum limit of evidence by the public prosecutor so that the judge will release the defendant because the evidence that can blame the defendant is insufficient and based on the elaboration of the writer above, the Supreme Court allows legal efforts to overturn an acquittal (vrijspraak) namely an appeal on an acquittal, but not all verdicts requested for appeal are always accepted by the Supreme Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document