RECONSTRUCTION OF AUTHORITY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN DISCLAIMER OF CASE FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDONESIA
Main Article Content
Abstract
The exclusion of cases in the public interest by the Attorney General (seponeering) in Indonesia has caused controversy because there needs to be an adequate oversight mechanism. Seponeering can lead to abuse of authority and legal uncertainty for citizens. This study examines the need to reformulate the control mechanism for overriding cases in the public interest to ensure legal certainty and justice. This study used normative legal research methods with a philosophical and analytic approach. The study results a show that judicial control is one of the mechanisms that can be applied to oversee the seponeering by the Attorney General without eliminating his authority to make decisions in the public interest. This judicial oversight needs to be realized in legislation that regulates the pretrial mechanism so that it involves investigators, interested parties, and the wider community in supervising the decisions of the Attorney General. These control mechanisms ensure integrity and fairness in the criminal justice system and increase public confidence. Therefore, it is necessary to reformulate the pretrial mechanism by incorporating the principle of separation as its object, either by challenging legal provisions or by drafting a new Criminal Procedure Code. These control mechanisms ensure integrity and fairness in the criminal justice system and increase public confidence. Therefore, it is necessary to reformulate the pretrial mechanism by incorporating the principle of separation as its object, either by challenging legal provisions or by drafting a new Criminal Procedure Code. These control mechanisms ensure integrity and fairness in the criminal justice system and increase public confidence. Therefore, it is necessary to reformulate the pretrial mechanism by incorporating the principle of separation as its object, either by challenging legal provisions or by drafting a new Criminal Procedure Code.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Abidin, A. Z. “Sejarah dan Perkembangan Asas Oportunitas di Indonesia.” Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita, 1980.
Almeida, Luís Duarte d’. Allowing for Exceptions: A Theory of Defences and Defeasibility in Law. Oxford University Press, 2015.
Ariska, Dudung Indra. “Yurisdiksi Asas Oportunitas dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia, deepublish.” Yogyakarta, 2013.
Bernard, Thomas J., Eugene A. Paoline, dan Paul-Philippe Pare. “General Systems Theory and Criminal Justice.” Journal of Criminal Justice 33, no. 3 (1 Mei 2005): 203–11. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.02.001.
Chandra, Tofik Yanuar. Deponeering Dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Sangir Multi Media, 2022.
Duff, R. A. “Relational Reasons and the Criminal Law.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, 10 Juli 2012. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2103308.
Edwards, James. “Theories of Criminal Law,” 6 Agustus 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/criminal-law/.
Faried, Femmy Silaswaty, Hadi Mahmud, dan Suparwi Suparwi. “Mainstreaming Restorative Justice in Termination of Prosecution in Indonesia.” Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System 2, no. 1 (30 Maret 2022). doi:10.53955/jhcls.v2i1.31.
Harahap, M. Yahya. Pembahasan permasalahan dan penerapan KUHAP penyidikan dan penuntutan Edisi kedua. Jakarta: SInar Grafika, 2002.
Hutauruk, Semuel, Dr. Prija Djatmika, dan Dr. Faizin Sulistio. “Urgensi Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia.” Sarjana, Universitas Brawijaya, 2021. http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/188946/.
Irawan, Agung. “Peranan Kejaksaan Dalam Implementasi Penegakan Hukum Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Ri Nomor : 02 Tahun 2012 Tentang Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan Dan Jumlah Denda Dalam Kuhp Terhadap Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Harta Kekayaan (Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia).” Riau Law Journal 3, no. 2 (30 November 2019): 244–60. doi:10.30652/rlj.v3i2.7813.
Ishaq. Metode Penelitian Hukum Dan Penulisan Skripsi, Tesis, Serta Disertasi. ALFABETA, cv, 2017.
Karim Nasution, paper entitled "Public Interest as the Basis for Case Waiver", presented at the symposium on Opportunity Principle Problems, Ujung Pandang, 1981
Krisnalita, Louisa Yesami, dan Dinda Wigrhalia. “Penghentian Penyidikan Terhadap Delik Biasa atau Laporan Berdasarkan Teori Hukum Progresif.” Binamulia Hukum 9, no. 2 (2020): 93–106. doi:https://doi.org/10.37893/jbh.v9i2.124.
Kuffal, HM Alam. Penerapan KUHAP dalam praktik hukum. Malang: Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, 2003.
M.A, Nurdin. “Termination of Employment Problems in Indonesia.” Psychology and Education Journal, 58, no. 2 (2021).
Mahmud Marzuki, Peter. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2011.
Muhammad, Rusli. Hukum acara pidana kontemporer. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2007.
Mustriadhi, Aris. “Ratio Legis Tidak Adanya Pengaturan Upaya Hukum Dari Deponering Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Jaksa Agung.” Yurispruden 3, no. 1 (31 Januari 2020): 78. doi:10.33474/yur.v3i1.4966.
Nugraha, Yodi. “Optimalisasi Asas Oportunitas Pada Kewenangan Jaksa Guna Meminimalisir Dampak Primum Remedium Dalam Pemidanaan.” Veritas et Justitia 6, no. 1 (28 Juni 2020): 213–36. doi:10.25123/vej.v6i1.3882.
Pandiangan, Hendri Jayadi. “Perbedaan Hukum Pembuktian Dalam Perspektif Hukum Acara Pidana Dan Perdata.” To-Ra 3, no. 2 (11 September 2017): 565–82. doi:10.33541/tora.v3i2.1154.
Suisno, Suisno, Enik Isnaini, dan Ahmad Royani. “Termination Of Accurate Investigations And Restorative Justice.” Jurnal Independent 10, no. 1 (25 Maret 2022): 32–42. doi:10.30736/ji.v10i1.157.
Suroso, I. “Harmoni Pengaturan Surat Ketetapan Penghentian Penyidikan Oleh Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia,” 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.25139/lex.v3i1.1813.
Suroso, Imam. “Hukum Acara Pidana (Karakteristik Penghentian Penyidikan dan Implikasi Hukumnya).” Yogyakarta. LaksBang Presindo, 2016.