Pretrial Dilemma and Main Case Examination

  • Erwin Ubwarin Pattimura University
  • Firel Sahetapy Law Faculty, Maluku Indonesian Christian University
Keywords: Pretrial, Main Case, Rights

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the interpretation of the limits of the pretrial process and the start of the examination of the main case examination, often causing debates between judges, prosecutors, legal advisors and the defendant. The research method used is normative juridical. The results of the study show that there are two contradictions between the Constitutional Court Number 102/PUU-XIII/2015 and the Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 5 of 2021, which both provide different explanations regarding Article 82 paragraph (1) letter d of the Criminal Procedure Code, The Supreme Court Circular does not protect the defendants human rights by taking into account the due process model principle, because when the public prosecutor submits a case to the court, it is considered that the suspect's rights in the judicial process are automatically invalidated. In fact, if seen in Article 143 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the indictment is only a requirement for delegation, not reading the indictment at the time of the main case, and Article 79 and Article 80 clearly explain the protection of the rights of suspects and victims' rights in the pretrial process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

References
(a) Journal

[1] Afandi, Fachrizal. “Perbandingan Praktik Praperadilan Dan Pembentukan Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan Dalam Peradilan Pidana Indonesia.” Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada 8, no. 1 (n.d.): 94–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.15868.
[2] Giava Zahrannis, Fira Natasha Sinuraya, Salsa Juanita Prihapsari. “Penjaminan Due Process of Law Melalui Zonasi, Transformasi, Dan Reformasi E-Litigasi Pidana Di Indonesia.” Ikatan Penulis Mahasiswa Hukum Indonesia Law Journal 1, no. 2 (n.d.): 142–156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/ipmhi.v1i2.53265.
[3] Ilham, Maya Hildawati. “Kajian Atas Asas Peradilan Cepat, Sederhana, Dan Biaya Ringan Terhadap Pemenuhan Hak Pencari Keadilan.” Verstek: Jurnaal Hukum Acara 7, no. 3 (n.d.): 212–222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v7i3.38286.
[4] Kusumastuti, Ely. “Penetapan Tersangka Sebagai Obyek Praperadilan.” Yuridika 33, no. 1 (2018): 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v33i1.7258.
[5] Latif, Abdul. “Jaminan UUD 1945 Dalam Proses Hukum Yang Adil, Jaminan UUD 1945 Dalam Proses Hukum Yang Adil.” Jurnal Kostitusi 7, no. 1 (2010): 50–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk%25x.
[6] Muhamad Iqbal, Susanto, and Moh Sutoro. “Efektifitas Sistem Administrasi E-Court Dalam Upaya Mendukung Proses Administrasi Cepat, Sederhana Dan Biaya Ringan Di Pengadilan.” JURNAL ILMU HUKUM: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Riau 9, no. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.30652/jih.v8i2.7286.


(b) Book

[7] Anggara, et al. Praperadilan Di Indonesia: Teori, Sejarah Dan Praktiknya. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, 2014.
[8] Effendi, Tolib. Sistem Peradilan Pidana: Perbandingan Komponen Dan Proses Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Beberapa Negara. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Yustisia, 2013.
[9] Hamzah, Andi. Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2014.
[10] Loeqman, Loebby. Pra Peradilan Di Indonesia,. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia, 1987.
Published
2022-06-17
How to Cite
Ubwarin, E., & Sahetapy, F. (2022). Pretrial Dilemma and Main Case Examination. JURNAL BELO, 8(1), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.30598/belovol8issue1page123-135