scholarly journals KEBIJAKAN PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP ANAK SEBAGAI KORBAN KEJAHATAN DALAM HUKUM POSITIF DI INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-218
Author(s):  
Nova Ariati
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Single Judge ◽  
Working Day ◽  
The Right ◽  
Trial Series

ABSTRAKSidang praperadilan dilakukan dengan cepat dan berita acara serta putusan praperadilan dibuat seperti pemeriksaan singkat dan dipimpin oleh seorang hakim tunggal. Tujuh hari merupakan ketentuan yang diamanatkan KUHAP untuk pelaksanaan rangkaian praperadilan yang cepat dan sederhana, mulai dari pemeriksaan perkara. Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui putusan nomor 78 / PUU-XI / 2013 menegaskan bahwa proses praperadilan paling lambat tujuh hari untuk memberikan kepastian hukum, terutama bagi pemohon yang merasa haknya dirugikan. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis empiris yaitu sebagai upaya pendekatan masalah yang diteliti dengan sifat hukum yang nyata atau sesuai dengan kenyataan dilapangan, karena dalam penelitian ini peneliti segera melakukan penelitian di lokasi atau lapangan penelitian yaitu tempat yang diteliti untuk memberikan gambaran yang lengkap dan jelas tentang masalah yang diteliti. Sifat penelitian ini adalah deskriptif. Penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder yaitu data yang telah disiapkan. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah interpretasi hakim terkait sidang praperadilan selama tujuh hari antara hari kerja dan hari kalender dalam beberapa kasus dan relevansinya dengan kode etik hakim di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru yang bervariasi. Hal ini karena masih adanya penafsiran hakim yang tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan KUHAP sehingga masih ada hakim yang memutuskan perkara praperadilan melebihi 7 hari kerja. Pemenuhan hak pemohon dengan interpretasi terkait sidang praperadilan tujuh hari antara hari kerja dan hari kalender di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru masih memuat beberapa perkara yang menunjukkan terpenuhinya hak pemohon sesuai dengan ketentuan di dalam KUHAP. Dalam Pasal 82 ayat (1) huruf c KUHAP paling lambat tujuh hari hakim harus sudah mengambil putusan, padahal masih ada beberapa perkara yang putusan hakimnya dijatuhkan lebih dari 7 hari. Kata kunci: interpretasi; uji coba tujuh hari; praperadilanABSTRACTThe pretrial hearing is conducted quickly and the minutes and pretrial decisions are made like a brief examination and are chaired by a single judge. Seven days is a provision mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code for the implementation of a quick and simple pre-trial series, starting from the commencement of the examination. The Constitutional Court through decision number 78 / PUU-XI / 2013 asserted that at the latest seven days the pretrial process is to provide legal certainty, especially for applicants who feel their rights are harmed. This type of research is empirical juridical research that is as an effort to approach the problem under study with the nature of law that is real or in accordance with the reality in the field, because in this study, researchers immediately conduct research on the location or place under study to provide a complete and clear picture about the problem under study. The nature of this research is descriptive. This study uses secondary data, namely data that has been prepared. The results of this study are the interpretation of judges related to the seven-day pretrial hearing between workdays and calendar days in some cases and their relevance to the judge's code of ethics in the Pekanbaru District Court varies. There are still interpretations of judges who are not in accordance with the provisions of the KUHAP so that there are still judges who decide that pretrial cases exceed 7 working days. Fulfillment of the right of the applicant with a related interpretation of the seven-day pretrial hearing between the working day and calendar day in the Pekanbaru District Court still contains several cases that indicate the fulfillment of the right of the applicant in accordance with the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code. In Article 82 paragraph (1) letter c KUHAP no later than seven days the judge must have made a decision, while there are still a number of cases where the judge's decision is imposed more than 7 days.Keywords: interpretation; seven days trial; pretrial

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 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 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 Fair Trial Principles in the Basis of Judges Considering Decisions Based on Testimonium De Auditu

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (07) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanels Garsione Damanik ◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Secondary Data Sources

After the enactment of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 65 / PUU-VIII / 2010, the history in the process of proving a criminal incident in Indonesia began to experience development. However, this creates a new problem because the decision of the constitutional court regarding the generalization of witness is contrary to legal norms in Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, especially in article 185 paragraph 1 and its exegesis. The decision of the constitutional court itself provides an opportunity for the testimonium de auditu to be used as evidence but does not provide a detailed explanation of the classification of the de auditu witness evidence including its type of evidence as evidence for witness testimony or indicative evidence following Article 184 of the Indonesia Criminal Procedure Code, exceptions regarding the acceptance of de auditu witnesses are used as evidence and the validity of testimony heard from other people (testimonium de auditu) is used as evidence. This also affects the quality of the judge's consideration when the de auditu witness must be used by the judge as a basis for his consideration, especially in the aspect of justice (fair trial). This study uses a normative juridical method that uses two primary and secondary data sources. The results showed that the importance of detailed arrangements in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding exceptions using the testimony de auditu with certain conditions to ensure justice, certainty, expediency to create a fair trial.

scholarly journals The Impact of Cases Termination Against Suspects Through Pretrial In The Process Of Investigating Tax Crimes

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (06) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bambang Waluyo ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
District Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

There are various criminal acts or tax violations that can be punished to criminal sanctions. Hence, by the publication of the Criminal Procedure Code, abbreviated as KUHAP, a pretrial is formed to maintain the orderliness in the investigation and protect the suspect against the actions of investigators and public prosecutors that violate the law and harm the suspect. This research aims to find out and examine normatively the pretrial institution that has the authority to examine and adjudicate the application for termination the investigations submitted by the suspect. Also, to determine juridical considerations as the basis of the petition for the pretrial authority cases against the applications for termination of investigations submitted by the suspect. This research is a normative juridical research. The conclusion is obtained that pretrial is the authority of the district court to examine and make decision according to the method regulated in this law, regarding the legality of an arrrest and / or at the request of the suspect or his family or other parties on the power of the suspect and the legality of the termination of investigations or prosecution on requests for the sake of upholding law and justice. Furthermore, based on Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 4 section (2) of Law No 48/2009 concerning on Judicial Power, Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 4 section (2) concerning on Judicial Power that give the suspect or defendant the right so that his fate is not suspended and obtains legal certainty.

scholarly journals Judicial legal positions in the context of conflicts related to the formation of the procedural status of persons against whom acts of criminal prosecution are actually implemented

2019 ◽  
pp. 114-119
Author(s):  
Sergey Grachev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article considers the grounds for the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in a criminal case. The rights and obligations of the specified person, including the right to protection are analyzed. Subject to the requirements of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the conclusion about the necessity of legislative consolidation of the procedural status of the person whose rights and lawful interests are affected carried out in relation to proceedings for verification of a crime report in accordance with article 144 of the Criminal procedure code and equating it to the status of a suspect, since during the pre-investigation check he has the right to protection from the criminal prosecution actually carried out against him.

scholarly journals Upaya Hukum Praperadilan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-77
Author(s):  
I Made Wisnu Wijaya Kusuma ◽  
I Made Sepud ◽  
Ni Made Sukaryati Karma
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject

Criminal justice system and Indonesian criminal procedural law adhere to presumption of innocence.So, a person must protect his human rights. KUHAP formed a new institution, namely pretrial. Based on this research authors raise formulation problems: 1. How pretrial regulation criminal justice system Indonesia, 2. How validity  pretrial that has not been decided if the subject matter case has been tried. Type research used normative. approach method used statutory approach, shortening analysis legal concepts. pre-trial authority according to Article 77 Criminal Procedure Code examines whether or not coercive measures are arrest and detention well examine whether or not termination investigation or prosecution, compensation and rehabilitation legal or not. Judge Sarpin stated that Sprindik, which became the basis for Budi Gunawan's investigation, was invalid. pretrial regulations are regulated Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Law in article 77 Criminal Procedure Code, namely pretrial, which   authority  district court examine and decide, Constitutional Court Number 21/PUU -XII/2014, authority pre-trial institution also includes whether or not determination suspects valid, searches and confiscation. Validity investigations carried out by KPK regarding   determination suspect Budi Gunawan was invalid therefore determination had no binding legal force. The Subject matter  pretrial case being tried declared null and void.

scholarly journals Obtaining Samples for a Comparative Study: Theoretical, Normative and Law Enforcement Problems

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-29
Author(s):  
Elena Zaitseva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article analyzes the debatable aspects of the normative regulation of obtaining samples for a comparative study according to the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is paid to the key problems in the regulation of this action, and to the difficulties that law enforcement employees face due to them. The author examines the questions of defining the legal nature of obtaining samples for a comparative study, and the possibility of using the operative search potential instead of the procedural method to obtain comparative samples. While analyzing the problems of setting the limits of compulsion for this action, the author stresses the incorrectness of some wording in the law (Art. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). In the light of ensuring the right of criminally prosecuted persons to defense, the author also presents a critical assessment of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reflected in the Definition of July 23, 2020 № 1856-0, in the part where obtaining samples for a comparative study is recognized as an action of urgent nature.

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.

Bantuan Hukum Cuma-Cuma Bagi Tersangka yang Tidak Mampu Pada Tingkat Penyidikan

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rio Saputra ◽  
Mokhammad Najih
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Data ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Study Techniques ◽  
The Right

<p><em>Suspects have the right to obtain legal assistance, especially for suspects who are classified as economically disadvantaged in accordance with Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The facts show that there are many irregularities in the implementation of legal aid, therefore it is necessary to know about the implementation of free legal aid for suspects who are incapacitated at the level of investigation and the factors that become obstacles in the implementation of legal aid. This legal research is an empirical legal research and this research is descriptive in nature. The data used are primary data and secondary data. The techniques used to collect data were document study techniques and interview techniques. Inhibiting factors affecting the implementation of free legal aid for suspects who are unable at the level of investigation can be classified and differentiated into 3 factors, namely, legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture).</em></p><p><strong><em>Keywords: </em></strong><em>Legal Aid, Criminal Cases</em></p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document