{"title":"宪法法院判决前后庭前程序执行的比较编号:21 / PUU-XII / 2014在巴塘州法院","authors":"Moch. Isa Nazarudin, Umar Ma’ruf","doi":"10.30659/jdh.v3i1.8684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the basis of the court's authority to examine and decide on pretrial lawsuits, analyze and describe the legal force of pretrial decisions regarding the illegitimacy of determining criminal suspects and describe the comparative implementation of pretrial proceedings before and after the Constitutional Court ruling Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 in the Batang State CourtThis research uses descriptive research type with sociological juridical and normative juridical, data collection method with literature study, observation and content analysis.At the end of the study the authors concluded that although the Constitutional Court's decision was indeed final and binding and binding and legal remedies could not be made anymore (a final decision). However, that does not mean automatically changing the Criminal Procedure Code. Because these changes can only be made by official institutions appointed by the State, namely the President and the Parliament which are the state's decision. Pre-trial objects prior to the enactment of the Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014, consisting of: whether or not a forced act of force (in the form of: arrest, detention, search and seizure); the validity of the termination of the investigation or the termination of the prosecution; and compensation or rehabilitation of pretrial objects after the entry into force of the Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014, namely the addition of a pretrial object over the validity of determining the suspect. In addition, the implications of the a quo Constitutional Court ruling also affect the validity of arrest and the validity of detention must be based on the objective requirements of the investigator; through two pieces of evidence and an examination of a prospective suspect in order to fulfill the allegation of \"preliminary evidence, sufficient preliminary evidence, and sufficient evidence\".Keywords: Pretrial; MK Decision; Pretrial Object.","PeriodicalId":118542,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Daulat Hukum","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Of The Implementation Of Pre-Court Process Before And After The Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 In The Batang State Court\",\"authors\":\"Moch. Isa Nazarudin, Umar Ma’ruf\",\"doi\":\"10.30659/jdh.v3i1.8684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the basis of the court's authority to examine and decide on pretrial lawsuits, analyze and describe the legal force of pretrial decisions regarding the illegitimacy of determining criminal suspects and describe the comparative implementation of pretrial proceedings before and after the Constitutional Court ruling Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 in the Batang State CourtThis research uses descriptive research type with sociological juridical and normative juridical, data collection method with literature study, observation and content analysis.At the end of the study the authors concluded that although the Constitutional Court's decision was indeed final and binding and binding and legal remedies could not be made anymore (a final decision). However, that does not mean automatically changing the Criminal Procedure Code. Because these changes can only be made by official institutions appointed by the State, namely the President and the Parliament which are the state's decision. Pre-trial objects prior to the enactment of the Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014, consisting of: whether or not a forced act of force (in the form of: arrest, detention, search and seizure); the validity of the termination of the investigation or the termination of the prosecution; and compensation or rehabilitation of pretrial objects after the entry into force of the Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014, namely the addition of a pretrial object over the validity of determining the suspect. In addition, the implications of the a quo Constitutional Court ruling also affect the validity of arrest and the validity of detention must be based on the objective requirements of the investigator; through two pieces of evidence and an examination of a prospective suspect in order to fulfill the allegation of \\\"preliminary evidence, sufficient preliminary evidence, and sufficient evidence\\\".Keywords: Pretrial; MK Decision; Pretrial Object.\",\"PeriodicalId\":118542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Daulat Hukum\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Daulat Hukum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v3i1.8684\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Daulat Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v3i1.8684","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本研究的目的是描述和分析法院审查和决定审前诉讼的权力基础,分析和描述关于确定犯罪嫌疑人的非法性的审前决定的法律效力,并描述宪法法院裁决前后审前程序的比较执行情况:21 / PUU-XII / 2014 in the Batang State court本研究采用描述性研究法结合社会学法学和规范法学,数据收集法结合文献研究法、观察法和内容分析法。在研究结束时,作者的结论是,虽然宪法法院的决定确实是最终的和有约束力的,但法律补救办法不能再作出(最后决定)。然而,这并不意味着自动改变《刑事诉讼法》。因为这些变化只能由国家任命的官方机构进行,即总统和议会,这是国家的决定。宪法法院第21 / PUU-XII / 2014号决定颁布前的审前事项,包括:是否为强制武力行为(以逮捕、拘留、搜查和扣押的形式);侦查终止或者起诉终止的效力;以及在第21 / PUU-XII / 2014号宪法法院决定生效后赔偿或恢复审前目标,即在确定嫌疑人的有效性上增加一个审前目标。此外,现行宪法法院裁决所涉问题也影响到逮捕的有效性,拘留的有效性必须以调查人员的客观要求为基础;通过两件证据和对一名潜在嫌疑人的审查,以实现“初步证据、充分初步证据、充分证据”的主张。关键词:预审;可决定;审判前的对象。
Comparison Of The Implementation Of Pre-Court Process Before And After The Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 In The Batang State Court
The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the basis of the court's authority to examine and decide on pretrial lawsuits, analyze and describe the legal force of pretrial decisions regarding the illegitimacy of determining criminal suspects and describe the comparative implementation of pretrial proceedings before and after the Constitutional Court ruling Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 in the Batang State CourtThis research uses descriptive research type with sociological juridical and normative juridical, data collection method with literature study, observation and content analysis.At the end of the study the authors concluded that although the Constitutional Court's decision was indeed final and binding and binding and legal remedies could not be made anymore (a final decision). However, that does not mean automatically changing the Criminal Procedure Code. Because these changes can only be made by official institutions appointed by the State, namely the President and the Parliament which are the state's decision. Pre-trial objects prior to the enactment of the Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014, consisting of: whether or not a forced act of force (in the form of: arrest, detention, search and seizure); the validity of the termination of the investigation or the termination of the prosecution; and compensation or rehabilitation of pretrial objects after the entry into force of the Constitutional Court Decision Number: 21 / PUU-XII / 2014, namely the addition of a pretrial object over the validity of determining the suspect. In addition, the implications of the a quo Constitutional Court ruling also affect the validity of arrest and the validity of detention must be based on the objective requirements of the investigator; through two pieces of evidence and an examination of a prospective suspect in order to fulfill the allegation of "preliminary evidence, sufficient preliminary evidence, and sufficient evidence".Keywords: Pretrial; MK Decision; Pretrial Object.