Judicial Review of PPAT Calls According to the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to know, understand, and analyze the calling of PPAT according to criminal justice system related to protection aspect and form of legal responsibility.

This research method uses normative law research type. Normative legal research is a legal research that lays law as a norm system building. The norm system is about principles, norms, and rules, rules of law, court decisions, agreements and doctrines (teachings). Using the approach method: Statutory Approach, Case Approach, and Conceptual Approach. Normative procedure research results in the calling of PPAT as a witness or suspect are imposed by Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code while the seizure of the original deed of PPAT (minuta) and warkah can only be done with the special permission of the Chairman of the local District Court under the provisions of Article 43 of the Book Invite Criminal Procedure Law. PPAT as a Public Officer in carrying out his / her position should have special legal protection to keep the honor and dignity of his / her position including when giving testimony and information in examination and trial. Notary and PPAT positions have similarity in carrying out its duty of making an authentic deed based on the wishes of the parties. The calling of a notary in the criminal justice system has a provision which must be followed as the provisions of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of the Law on Notary Call for the interest of the criminal proceeding process shall obtain the approval of the Notary Public Council while the invitation to the PPAT office shall have the legal provisions in general not having legal protection set specifically.