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

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audaraziq Ismail ◽  
Eva Achjani Zulfa ◽  
Yutcesyam Yutcesyam ◽  
Fatiatulo Lazira

Prosecution is basically an action by the public prosecutor to delegate a criminal case to the competent District Court so that it is examined and decided by a judge in a court session. With regard to prosecution, Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that there are 3 reasons for stopping prosecution, namely that an event is not a criminal act, there is not enough evidence collected by investigators to prove the fulfillment of the elements in a criminal act and for the sake of law. The Criminal Code, First, with regard to the application of the principle of ne bis in idem. Second, if the Defendant dies, Third, Expires, Fourth, Settlement outside the court, Article 82 of the Criminal Code has described if an offense is threatened with a fine only, then prosecution can be avoided by paying the maximum fine directly. Against corporations, prosecution is limited by a number of provisions, in this case also including when the corporation is bankrupt. That as a result, if the entire corporate assets are included in the bankruptcy code, there will be a transfer of corporate licenses and an impact on the liquidation process. Thus, based on the provisions of Article 142 paragraph (1) of Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the corporation is dissolved. Thus, the prosecution of the bankrupt corporation can be dropped.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heru Drajat Sulistyo

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).


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-368
Author(s):  
Christina Mahdalena Saragih ◽  
Sonya Airini Batubara ◽  
Martin Johan Napitupulu ◽  
Nico Iryanto Sihombing ◽  
Novita Wanrelin Gultom

This article aims to analyze the consideration of the public prosecutor in merging and separating indictments for several criminal cases and to find out the obstacles of the public prosecutor in merging and separating indictments against several criminal cases. The research used is normative juridical research. With secondary research methods, namely secondary legal materials, which consist of books and articles related to research (both in the form of newspapers, magazines, journals, and other writings). The data obtained are then analyzed qualitatively by describing and describing the data and facts resulting from a research in the field with an interpretation, evaluation, and general knowledge. In the results of this study, the merger of indictments against several criminal cases is Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads: "Public prosecutors can merge cases and make them into one indictment". Meanwhile, for the separation of the indictment, there is Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads: "In the event that the Public Prosecutor receives a case file containing several criminal acts committed by several suspects which are not included in the provisions of Article 141"


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-80
Author(s):  
Eddi Maulizar ◽  
Dahlan Ali ◽  
M. Jafar

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Hidayat Abdulah

In the implementation of the criminal case handling a lot of things that can be done to perfect evidence is the failure by one of them is doing a separate filing (splitsing). In Article 142 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the public prosecutor has the authority to separate docket (splitsing) against each defendant if found lacking evidence and testimony, as well as other matters that are not included in the provisions of Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Separation of the case must be based on solely the purpose of examination. That's what makes the public prosecutor has the authority to determine the case file should be separated (splitsing) or not. The purpose for doing the separation of the case file (splitsing) is to facilitate the enforcement of the prosecutor when the court process, to strengthen the evidence for lack of evidence when the process of verification, then a criminal offense committed by the offender more than one and the same time one of these actors into the search list (DPO) which allow splitsing.Keywords: Separate Filing; The Criminal Case.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 384-397
Author(s):  
Zulkifli Harahap ◽  
Edi Warman ◽  
M. Citra Ramadhan

The purpose of this study was to analyze the legal rules governing the causal factors and actions taken by the Delitua Police in the event of a criminal act during the Covid-19 pandemic. This type of research is normative juridical research, namely research conducted by examining library materials (secondary data) or library law research. The results showed that the legal rules governing criminal acts that occurred during the Covid 19 period were regulated in government laws and regulations, namely the 1945 Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 2 of 2002 concerning the police, Government Regulation No. 21 of 2020 concerning Large-Scale Social Restrictions (PSBB) during the Covid period as well as other supporting regulations such as Presidential Regulations, Presidential Instruction, Governor Regulations, and Chief of Police Decrees. The factors that caused perpetrators to commit crimes during the Covid period were inter-factors, namely religion, economy and poverty as well as education, as well as external factors consisting of environmental factors, promiscuity and lack of government attention in providing social assistance. Efforts to tackle the occurrence of criminal acts during the Covid period, namely by making penal and non-penal efforts by providing counseling and socialization about maintaining health, washing hands, wearing masks for prison visitors, providing social assistance to each community equally.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Ariananto Waluyo Adi

The law recognizes both litigation and non-litigation settlement mechanisms, but it is almost not explicitly regulated for non-litigation settlement in criminal cases. Non-litigation in criminal recognizes the concept of restorative justice for the public interest, which is different from the private realm in civil. The concept of restorative justice exists to rehabilitate the state of criminals so that they are accepted back into the community. The concept of restorative justice is manifested in the mediation mechanism in criminal law in the form of penal mediation, but penal mediation does not yet have a legal umbrella. The non-progressive normative application of the law results in the overcapacity of prisons/remand centres. Currently, the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter as RKUHAP) is being drafted, which does not yet regulate the application of non-litigation solutions. Later, it can be applied by law enforcement agencies so that problems such as overcapacity prisons are resolved and the creation of peaceful order in the community. This study aims to provide a view of the concept of penal mediation in criminal procedural law to serve as an aspiration for the consideration of the parties involved in the preparation of the substance of the RKUHAP. This paper uses a normative approach with technical analysis using hermeneutic analysis and interpretation methods.


Author(s):  
Guntur Dirga Saputra

Indonesia's natural resources in the form of very wide waters pose a threat to the crime of illegal fishing. The prevention of these crimes is carried out by giving the investigator authority to sink / burn ships with foreign flags directly without a court decision having permanent legal force as regulated in Law 45/2009. This research is a normative legal research. The results of this writing explain that the sinking / burning of foreign-flagged ships by investigators is contrary to Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which is hierarchically higher than Law 45/2009 and SPP regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code so that it does not provide justice and legal certainty because it has seized the rights of the suspect / defendant. The sinking / burning of the ship is the authority of the Public Prosecutor to carry out the execution after a court decision has permanent legal force which stipulates that evidence in the form of a ship is seized for destruction and is not under the authority of the investigator. The government and the DPR RI should revise Law 45/2009 to revoke the authority of investigators who can directly sink / burn ships and to the Prosecutor to coordinate and involve investigators to become witnesses in the execution. Kekayaan alam Indonesia berupa perairan yang sangat luas menimbulkan ancaman terjadinya tindak pidana illegal fishing. Penanggulangan kejahatan tersebut dilakukan dengan memberikan kewenangan kepada penyidik untuk melakukan penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal yang berbendera asing yang secara langsung tanpa putusan pengadilan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap sebagaimana diatur dalam UU 45/2009. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil penulisan ini menjelaskan bahwa Penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal berbendera asing oleh Penyidik bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D Ayat (1) UUDNRI 1945 yang secara hirarki lebih tinggi dari UU 45/2009 dan SPP yang diatur dalam KUHAP sehingga tidak memberikan keadilan dan kepastian hukum oleh karena telah merampas hak tersangka/terdakwa. Penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal merupakan kewenangan Jaksa Penuntut Umum untuk melakukan eksekusi setelah adanya putusan pengadilan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap yang menetapkan barang bukti berupa kapal untuk dirampas untuk dimusnahkan dan bukan merupakan kewenangan penyidik. Pemerintah dengan DPR RI agar melakukan revisi UU 45/2009 untuk mencabut kewenangan penyidik yang secara langsung dapat melakukan penenggelaman/pembakaran kapal dan kepada Jaksa agar melakukan kordinasi dan melibatkan penyidik untuk menjadi saksi dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi.


Author(s):  
Rahmadianto Andra ◽  

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.


Author(s):  
Wirman Wirman ◽  
Elwi Danil ◽  
Azmi Fendri

Proof of indication of crime from an authentic deed made by a notary requires the presence of a notary in the examination of criminal cases starting from the level of investigation, prosecution by the prosecutor, until proof through examination at the trial. The presence of a notary who is indicated to commit crime is very determined from the formal and material aspects. This study employs an empirical juridical approach which means looking at the implementation of the provisions and theories that become references to the discussion using primary and secondary data. Based on the results of the study, the descriptive data shows that the concept of regulation in the investigation of crime carried out by notary is closely related to the regulation of the duties and authorities of the notary as determined by Law on Notary Position through an audit approval process by the Honorary Board of Notaries which is technically specified in the Ministry Regulation Law and Human Rights No. 7 of 2016. It means that approval is fundamental after the request from the investigator. Furthermore, it is processed in accordance with the procedures specified in the provisions of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. On the contrary, the provisions of the criminal procedure are still guided by the Criminal Procedure Code. Meanwhile, the form of a notary liability on the deed that he/she has made is a notary liability to the extent of the authority he/she has in carrying out the profession as a deed-making official; unless the notary makes a mistake or negligence so that the deed is detrimental to the appearers. The liability of a notary can be in the form of civil, administrative and criminal liability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document