Legal Remedies for Judicial Review for Investigators of Pretrial Decisions Regarding the Invalidity of the Order to Terminate the Investigation in the Perspective of Law Enforcement with Certainty

Eko Wiyono, I Nyoman Nurjaya, Prija Djatmika, Bambang Sugiri

Abstract


Arrangements regarding legal remedies that can be submitted by investigators against the judge's decision regarding investigative actions in the form of terminating the investigation with the issuance of an Investigation Termination Order (SP3) in pretrial cases. Law No. 8/1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code was not expressly enforced. This article aims to identify legal remedies against pretrial decisions regarding the invalidity of the Termination of Investigation Order (SP3) in the future. This paper is normative legal research, namely the process of finding legal rules, legal principles, and legal doctrines to address legal issues at hand. The result of this study is the arrangements regarding extraordinary legal remedies in the form of a judicial review of criminal decisions that have permanent legal force and are not acquitted or released from all previous legal claims before the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code that have been regulated can also be submitted by interested parties. Necessary to reconstruct the regulation of legal remedies against pretrial decisions, especially extraordinary legal remedies in the form of reconsideration, especially by investigators as parties who are very interested in the action.

Keywords


Legal Remedies; Pretrial Decisions; Invalidity of The Order to Terminate the Investigation; Criminal Procedure Code

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alfiah, R.N. (1986). Praperadilan dan Ruang Lingkupnya. Jakarta: CV Akademika Pressindo.

Apeldorn, L.J.V. (2001). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.

Atmasasmita, Romli. (2010). Sistem Peradilan Pidana Kontemporer. Jakarta: Kencana.

Damaska, M. (1973). Evidentiary Barries to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study. University of Pensylvania Law Review, Vol. 121, 506, p-558.

Harahap, M.Y. (2002). Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Ibrahim, J.. (2011). Teori dan Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Malang: Bayumedia.

Marzuki, P.M. (2001). Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media.

Muhadar, et.al. (2009). Perlindungan Saksi & Korban. Surabaya: CV. Putra Media Nusantara.

Nasution, A.B. (2002). Praperadilan Versus Hakim Komisaris (Beberapa Pemikiran Mengenai Keduanya). News Letter, KHN.

Rukmini, M. (2003). Perlindungan HAM Melalui Asas Praduga Tidak Bersalah dan Asas Persamaan Kedudukan Dalam Hukum pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia. Bandung: PT. Alumni.

Soemitro, R.H.. (1998). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum dan Jurimetri. Cet.Ke-3. Ed. Revisi. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v8i10.3115

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.