Prosecutor’s Position in the Third Party Objections the Decision of the Court That Confiscating Evidence Goods for the State in Narcotic Criminal Acts

Abstract

The District Court Panel of Judges interpreted the remedies of third party objections in good faith to the District Court's decision that confiscating evidence goods for the state in narcotics crime contained in Article 101 paragraph (2) of Law Number 35 Year 2009 Concerning Narcotics is the same as derden verzet in the civil procedural law as regulated in Article 195 paragraph (6) of HIR or Article 378 Rv. This is motivated by the absence of an explanation of the objection in Article 101 paragraph (2) of Law Number 35 Year 2009 Concerning Narcotics. Problems that arise are : (1) how the Prosecutor's position is in the case of a third party objections to the decision of the District Court that confiscating evidence goods for the state in narcotics crime, (2) how the criteria of third parties who have good faith in the case of third party objection to the decision of the Court the country that confiscating evidence goods for the state in narcotics crime, and (3) how is the procedure of the third party's objection to the decision of the District Court that confiscating evidence good for the state in narcotics crime. To obtain accurate research data, normative juridical research methods are used which are derived from secondary data collected by the author by emphasizing legal aspects related to the problem and related to existing legal material. From the results of the study it was concluded that: (1) The Prosecutor's position in the matter of a third party in favor of the State Court's decision to confiscating evidence goods for the country in narcotics crime was to represent the State as Defendant / Defendant on the basis of possession of the object of the dispute that was confiscating by the State Court in Narcotics, (2) the criteria of a third party having a good intention in a case of objection to a District Court ruling that confiscating evidence goods for the state in a narcotics crime is obtaining ownership rights as evidenced by agreement letters, not knowing and not allowing such evidence goods to be used as a means or tool help commit narcotics crime, and (3) The third party objection procedure in good faith against the decision of the District Court that confiscating evidence goods for the state in narcotics crime is filed a third party objection to the Prosecutor's Office based on derden verzet as stipulated in Article 195 paragraph (6) HIR within 14 (fourteen) days after the announcement of the first level Court decision.