The Implementation of Pretrial Object Extention on Suspect Determination After the Constitutional Court Ruling No.21/PUU-XII/2014 Viewed from the Perspectives of Justice and Legal Certainty
- February 10, 2019
- Posted by: RSIS
- Category: Social Science
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume III, Issue I, January 2019 | ISSN 2454–6186
Andhi Subangun, Prof. Dr. Supanto, S.H., M.Hum, Dr. Widodo Tresno Novianto, S.H., M.Hum
Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia
Abstract: – This study investigated the implementation of pretrial object extension on suspect determination after the Constitutional Court Ruling No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 viewed from the perspctives of justice and legal certainty through pretrial decision.
This study is a categorized as normative study which analyzes various kind of pretrial decisions after Constitutional Court (also known as MK) Ruling No 21/PUU-XII/2014, whether the implementation of pretrial decision making has considered the principal of justice and the legal certainty.
This current study used cases approach, in which it was done by specifically examining and analyzing the cases that have become pretrial decision.
The results of the study informed that the implementation of pretrial judge’s decision after the emergence of Constitutional Court Ruling No.21/PUU-XII/2014, in the implementation of the pretrial judge’s decision after the Constitutional Court RulingNo. 21/PUU-XII/2014, there were some decisions referred to the Constitutional Court (MKNo. 21/PUU-XII/2014) and some were not. Pretrial decisions referred to the Constitutional Court Ruling tended to provide a sense of justice and legal certainty sincethe pretrial judges had examined evidence possessed by law enforcement officers before deciding someone as a suspect regardless whether the results were granted or rejected. Meanwhile, pretrial decisions that did not refer to MK No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 tended not to give a sense of justice and legal certainty because judges questioned the matters outside of the evidence possessed by investigators so that this can lead to misuse of authority by pretrial judges. In the implementation of pretrial decisions, one another is sometimes contradictory, so it created legal uncertainty.
Given the above conditions, pretrial judges should consequently implement the Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA)No. 2 Year 2016 to create the same procedure and fair decision in pretrial case handling.
Keywords: pretrial, suspect, constitutional court, justice and legal certainty