Tinjauan Yuridis Lembaga Penahanan Terhadap Pelaksanaan Perintah Penahanan Hakim Yang Terdapat Dalam Putusan Pengadilan

M. Said
{"title":"Tinjauan Yuridis Lembaga Penahanan Terhadap Pelaksanaan Perintah Penahanan Hakim Yang Terdapat Dalam Putusan Pengadilan","authors":"M. Said","doi":"10.51749/jphi.v2i2.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe purpose of this study is to find out first, how the arrangements of detention institutions to ensure legal certainty on the implementation of the judge's detention order (Ordering the defendant to be detained immediately) contained in the Court's decision. Second, to find out the juridical implications for the defendant and the Public Prosecutor on the implementation of the judge's detention order contained in the Court's decision. The method used in this research is a normative juridical research method. The results of the study said that in the public interest detention can be done with strict conditions. Therefore, the detention made against the defendant is limited by the rights of the suspect/defendant and the legislation is carried out in a limitative manner in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code. The implementation of the judge's detention authority in judicial practice there is ambiguity of legal norms because it is not regulated in the Criminal Code on the rules of judge's detention authority after the verdict is pronounced by the judge so that it gives rise to different interpretations from the point of view of the Public Prosecutor and Defendant's Legal Adviser. The judge's detention order is in accordance with the Instructions from the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia in his letter Number: R-89/EP/Ejp/05/2002 dated 06 May 2002 states: if there is an order to detain the defendant contained in the decision, then the Public Prosecutor must immediately execute it , although the decision does not yet have permanent legal force, because the implementation of the detention of the defendant carried out by the Public Prosecutor does not execute the court's decision, but merely executes the Judge's order contained in the verdict, as referred to in article 197 paragraph (1) letter k KUHAP.\n","PeriodicalId":146948,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51749/jphi.v2i2.35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find out first, how the arrangements of detention institutions to ensure legal certainty on the implementation of the judge's detention order (Ordering the defendant to be detained immediately) contained in the Court's decision. Second, to find out the juridical implications for the defendant and the Public Prosecutor on the implementation of the judge's detention order contained in the Court's decision. The method used in this research is a normative juridical research method. The results of the study said that in the public interest detention can be done with strict conditions. Therefore, the detention made against the defendant is limited by the rights of the suspect/defendant and the legislation is carried out in a limitative manner in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code. The implementation of the judge's detention authority in judicial practice there is ambiguity of legal norms because it is not regulated in the Criminal Code on the rules of judge's detention authority after the verdict is pronounced by the judge so that it gives rise to different interpretations from the point of view of the Public Prosecutor and Defendant's Legal Adviser. The judge's detention order is in accordance with the Instructions from the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia in his letter Number: R-89/EP/Ejp/05/2002 dated 06 May 2002 states: if there is an order to detain the defendant contained in the decision, then the Public Prosecutor must immediately execute it , although the decision does not yet have permanent legal force, because the implementation of the detention of the defendant carried out by the Public Prosecutor does not execute the court's decision, but merely executes the Judge's order contained in the verdict, as referred to in article 197 paragraph (1) letter k KUHAP.
在法庭判决中对执行法官限制令的司法审查
本研究的目的首先是查明拘留机构的安排如何确保法院判决中所载法官的拘留令(命令立即拘留被告)在执行方面的法律确定性。第二,查明执行法院判决中所载法官的拘留令对被告和检察官的法律影响。本研究采用的方法是一种规范的法律研究方法。研究结果表明,出于公共利益的考虑,拘留可以在严格的条件下进行。因此,对被告的拘留受到嫌疑人/被告权利的限制,立法是根据《刑法》的规定以有限的方式进行的。法官拘留权的行使在司法实践中存在着法律规范的模糊性,因为《刑法》中没有对法官宣判后法官拘留权的规则进行规定,从而从检察官和被告法律顾问的角度产生了不同的解释。法官的拘留令是根据印度尼西亚共和国总检察长2002年5月6日第R-89/EP/Ejp/05/2002号信函中的指示发出的,其中指出:如果判决中有拘留被告的命令,那么检察官必须立即执行,尽管该决定尚未具有永久的法律效力,因为检察官执行拘留被告并不执行法院的决定,而只是执行判决中法官的命令,如第197条第(1)款k - KUHAP所述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信