Testing Evidence In Determining Suspects In Pretrial (case Study Of Pretrial Decisions In The South Jakarta District Court Number 97/PID.PRAP/2017/PN.JKT.Sel; Number 36/PID.PRAP/2015/PN.JKT.Sel; Number 32/PID.PraP/2015/PN.JKT.Sel;

by ADMIN 231 views

Testing Evidence in Determining Suspects in Pretrial: A Case Study of Pretrial Decisions in the South Jakarta District Court

Introduction

The pretrial institution is a crucial component of the Indonesian legal system, aimed at protecting human rights, especially for suspects or defendants. Regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the pretrial process has undergone significant changes, with the Constitutional Court adding testing the determination of suspects, searching, and confiscation into pretrial authority. However, the current rules consist of only seven articles, which tend to be weak and focus on the process of collecting evidence. This article aims to analyze the procedure to find evidence in the determination of suspects by investigators of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), how to test evidence by pretrial judges, as well as legal efforts carried out by the KPK on the cancellation of the determination of the suspect.

The Importance of Pretrial in Protecting Human Rights

Pretrial is an institution that plays a vital role in protecting human rights, especially for suspects or defendants. The regulation on pretrial is limited, meaning that not all forced efforts can be submitted a pretrial application. However, the Constitutional Court through Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 has added testing the determination of suspects, searching, and confiscation into pretrial authority. This decision has significant implications for the protection of human rights in Indonesia.

The Procedure to Find Evidence in the Determination of Suspects

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigators follow the KPK Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) No. 01/23/2008, which was updated in 2015. The investigators must find a minimum of two pieces of evidence to determine the name of the suspect in the Investigation Order. This procedure is crucial in ensuring that the determination of suspects is based on solid evidence.

Testing Evidence by Pretrial Judges

The pretrial judge has seven days to test the determination of the suspect. In this process, the pretrial judge acts as a sole judge who examines all evidence formally. This shows that testing prioritizes aspects of formality rather than substance. The pretrial judge's role is critical in ensuring that the determination of suspects is fair and just.

Legal Efforts to the Cancellation of the Determination of Suspects

The KPK does not have a way to conduct a review of the pretrial decision. This refers to the Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) Number 4 of 2016 which prohibits the refuge of pretrial decisions, as well as the provisions in Article 45A of Law Number 5 of 2004 which regulates amendments to the Supreme Court Law, and the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 65/ PUU-IX/2011. This limitation has significant implications for the protection of human rights in Indonesia.

Challenges Faced in Efforts to Protect Human Rights

Testing evidence in pretrial shows the challenges faced in efforts to protect human rights in the legal process. Limited scope of testing and weak existing legal provisions affect the effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects. This research is important as a contribution in understanding how the justice system in Indonesia operates, especially in the context of eradicating corruption.

Methodology

This study uses a normative juridical method, which focuses on analysis of testing evidence in the determination of suspects. The results showed that KPK investigators found evidence by following the KPK Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) No. 01/23/2008, which was updated in 2015. The pretrial judge has seven days to test the determination of the suspect, and the KPK does not have a way to conduct a review of the pretrial decision.

Conclusion

Testing evidence in pretrial is a critical component of the Indonesian legal system. However, the current rules consist of only seven articles, which tend to be weak and focus on the process of collecting evidence. This research highlights the challenges faced in efforts to protect human rights in the legal process. The limited scope of testing and weak existing legal provisions affect the effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects. This research is important as a contribution in understanding how the justice system in Indonesia operates, especially in the context of eradicating corruption.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

  1. The government should review and revise the existing legal provisions on pretrial to ensure that they are effective in protecting human rights.
  2. The KPK should develop a more comprehensive SOP for investigators to follow in determining suspects.
  3. The pretrial judge should be given more time to test the determination of the suspect to ensure that the process is fair and just.
  4. The KPK should be given the authority to conduct a review of the pretrial decision to ensure that justice is served.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the study only focuses on the procedure to find evidence in the determination of suspects by investigators of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Secondly, the study only analyzes the legal provisions on pretrial and does not consider other factors that may affect the effectiveness of pretrial institutions. Finally, the study only examines the case of pretrial decisions in the South Jakarta District Court and does not consider other cases.

Future Research Directions

This study highlights the need for further research on the effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects. Future research should focus on the following areas:

  1. The impact of pretrial on the protection of human rights in Indonesia.
  2. The effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects.
  3. The role of the pretrial judge in ensuring that the determination of suspects is fair and just.
  4. The authority of the KPK to conduct a review of the pretrial decision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, testing evidence in pretrial is a critical component of the Indonesian legal system. However, the current rules consist of only seven articles, which tend to be weak and focus on the process of collecting evidence. This research highlights the challenges faced in efforts to protect human rights in the legal process. The limited scope of testing and weak existing legal provisions affect the effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects. This research is important as a contribution in understanding how the justice system in Indonesia operates, especially in the context of eradicating corruption.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Testing Evidence in Determining Suspects in Pretrial

Q1: What is the purpose of pretrial in the Indonesian legal system?

A1: The purpose of pretrial in the Indonesian legal system is to protect human rights, especially for suspects or defendants. Pretrial is an institution regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) with the aim of protecting human rights.

Q2: What is the role of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in pretrial?

A2: The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) plays a crucial role in pretrial as investigators. They follow the KPK Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) No. 01/23/2008, which was updated in 2015, to find evidence in determining suspects.

Q3: What is the procedure for testing evidence in pretrial?

A3: The pretrial judge has seven days to test the determination of the suspect. In this process, the pretrial judge acts as a sole judge who examines all evidence formally. This shows that testing prioritizes aspects of formality rather than substance.

Q4: Can the KPK conduct a review of the pretrial decision?

A4: No, the KPK does not have a way to conduct a review of the pretrial decision. This refers to the Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) Number 4 of 2016 which prohibits the refuge of pretrial decisions, as well as the provisions in Article 45A of Law Number 5 of 2004 which regulates amendments to the Supreme Court Law, and the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 65/ PUU-IX/2011.

Q5: What are the challenges faced in efforts to protect human rights in the legal process?

A5: The challenges faced in efforts to protect human rights in the legal process include limited scope of testing and weak existing legal provisions. These limitations affect the effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects.

Q6: What is the significance of this research?

A6: This research is significant as it contributes to understanding how the justice system in Indonesia operates, especially in the context of eradicating corruption. It highlights the challenges faced in efforts to protect human rights in the legal process and provides recommendations for improvement.

Q7: What are the recommendations for improvement?

A7: The recommendations for improvement include:

  1. Reviewing and revising the existing legal provisions on pretrial to ensure that they are effective in protecting human rights.
  2. Developing a more comprehensive SOP for investigators to follow in determining suspects.
  3. Giving the pretrial judge more time to test the determination of the suspect to ensure that the process is fair and just.
  4. Giving the KPK the authority to conduct a review of the pretrial decision to ensure that justice is served.

Q8: What are the limitations of this study?

A8: The limitations of this study include:

  1. The study only focuses on the procedure to find evidence in the determination of suspects by investigators of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
  2. The study only analyzes the legal provisions on pretrial and does not consider other factors that may affect the effectiveness of pretrial institutions.
  3. The study only examines the case of pretrial decisions in the South Jakarta District Court and does not consider other cases.

Q9: What are the future research directions?

A9: The future research directions include:

  1. The impact of pretrial on the protection of human rights in Indonesia.
  2. The effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects.
  3. The role of the pretrial judge in ensuring that the determination of suspects is fair and just.
  4. The authority of the KPK to conduct a review of the pretrial decision.

Q10: What is the conclusion of this research?

A10: In conclusion, testing evidence in pretrial is a critical component of the Indonesian legal system. However, the current rules consist of only seven articles, which tend to be weak and focus on the process of collecting evidence. This research highlights the challenges faced in efforts to protect human rights in the legal process. The limited scope of testing and weak existing legal provisions affect the effectiveness of pretrial institutions in providing justice for suspects. This research is important as a contribution in understanding how the justice system in Indonesia operates, especially in the context of eradicating corruption.