Published date: Oct 04 2022

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: 3rd International Conference on Law Reform (3rd INCLAR)

Pages: 157–172

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12087

Rocky Marbunrocky_marbun@univpancasila.ac.idFaculty of Law, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia

Endra WijayaFaculty of Law, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia

Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code is legislation that has been positioned as a legal umbrella for every law enforcement officer. However, not all powers and discretion exercised by law enforcers—especially investigators and public prosecutors, can be tested or questioned for their validity through the submission of a pretrial application. One model of action that cannot be tested is the act of instrumental communication. Every act of instrumentalist communication always accompanies the application of the authority and discretion of the Investigator and Public Prosecutor, which causes harm to someone who is made a suspect and a defendant. This study aims to find opportunities for legal remedies that can be taken by suspects and defendants against acts of instrumental communication from law enforcement. This research is legal research using an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach. The results of this study indicate that every act of instrumental communication that accompanies the use of authority and discretion and causes harm to the suspect and the defendant can be the object of a state administrative lawsuit based on Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration.

Keywords: criminal procedures, state administrative lawsuits, investigators, public prosecutors, communication actions

[1] Endang MI. Diskresi Dan Tanggung Jawab Pejabat Pemerintahan Menurut Undang- Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan. J. Huk. Peratun. 2018;1(2):223–44.

[2] Tim Pusat Kajian Sistem dan Hukum Administrasi Negara, Kajian Diskresi Dalam Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintaha. Jakarta: Lembaga Administrasi Negara; 2016.

[3] Instruksi Presiden Republik Indonesia, Instruksi Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 Tentang Percepatan Pelaksanaan Proyek Strategis Nasional. 2016.

[4] Hutahaean A, Indarti E. Lembaga Penyidik Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu Di Indonesia. J. Legis. Indones. 2019;16(1):27–41.

[5] Perdana A. “Diskresi Pejabat Penyidik Kepolisian Dalam Melakukan Penahanan,” PALAR (Pakuan. Law Rev. 2021;07(01):99–112.

[6] Marbun R. Tindakan Hukum Penyelidik/ Penyidik Kepolisian Republik Indonesia Sebagai Objek Gugatan Tatat Uusaha Negara Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Jakarta: Program Doktor Ilmu Hukum Universitas Jayabaya; 2017.

[7] Marbun R, Oedoyo W, Sinaga DM. Logika Monolog Dalam Trikotomi Relasi Pada Proses Pra-Adjudikasi. J. USM Law Rev. 2021;4(1):1–26.

[8] Gunawan R, et al. Membongkar Praktik Pelanggaran Hak Tersangka di Tingkat Penyidikan. Jakarta: LBH Masyarakat & Open Society Foundation; 2012.

[9] Indonesia KK. Meningkatkan Kesadaran Hukum Masyarakat Melalui Pelaporan dan Pengadilan Masyarakat. Jakarta: Komisi Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia; 2021.

[10] Ibrahim J. Teori dan Metodologi Penelitian. Jakarta: Bayumedia Publishing; 2012.

[11] Riana R, Junaidi M. “Penggunaan Bahasa Indonesia Baku Untuk Mendukung Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan,” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Multidisiplin Ilmu & Call for Papers UNISBANK Ke-3, 2017, pp. 815–820.

[12] Aditya ZF. Romantisme Sistem Hukum Di Indonesia : Kajian Atas Konstribusi Hukum Adat Dan Hukum Islam Terhadap Pembangunan Hukum Di Indonesia. J. Rechts Vinding Media Pembin. Huk. Nas. 2019;8(1):37–54.

[13] Heidegger M. Being And Time. United Kingdom: Blackweel Publishers Ltd; 2001. https://doi.org/10.5840/wpr19941219.

[14] Marbun R, Yuherawan DS, Mulyadi M. Kapita Selekta Penegakan Hukum (Acara) Pidana. Membongkar Tindak Tuturan dan Komunikasi Instrumental Aparat Penegak Hukum dalam Praktik Peradilan Pidana (Buku I). Jakarta: Publica Indonesia Utama; 2021.

[15] Sofyan N. Bahasa Sebagai Simbolisasi Mempertahankan Kekuasaan. J. Interak. 2014;3(1):75–84.

[16] Cenderamata RC, Darmayanti N. Analisis Wacana Kritis Fairclough Pada Pemberitaan Selebriti Di Media Daring. J. Literasi. 2019;3(April):1–8.

[17] 17 Budiwati TR. “Representasi Wacana Gender Dalam Ungkapan Berbahasa Indonesia Dan Bahasa Inggris: Analisis Wacana Kritis,” J. Kawistara J. Ilm. Sos. dan Hum. 2011;1(3):213–320. https://doi.org/10.22146/kawistara.3926..

[18] Shidarta, Hukum Penalaran dan Penalaran Hukum. Buku 1 (Akar Filosofis). Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing; 2013.

[19] Waljinah S. “Kajian Makna Simbolik Bahasa Hukum Pada Tindakan Diskresi Polisi.” Pros. Konf. Nas. APPPTM Ke-4. 2016;3:241–250.

[20] Dehaghani R. Interrogating Vulnerability: Reframing the Vulnerable Suspect in Police Custody. Soc Leg Stud. 2021;30(2):251–71.

[21] Fenwick H. The Rights of Victims of Crime: Protection from Harassment and Intimidation? J Crim Law. 1996;60(1):84–93.

[22] Marbun R. Pasivitas Fungsi Advokat Dalam Proses Pra-Adjudikasi: Membongkar Tindakan Komunikatif Instrumental Penyidik. J. Huk. Samudra Keadilan. 2020;15(1):17– 35.

[23] Gundoğan E. Conceptions of Hegemony in Antonio Gramsci’s Southern Question and the Prison Notebooks. New Propos. J. Marx. Interdiscip. Inq. 2008;2(1):45–60.

[24] Wasesa SA. “Relasi Kuasa dalam Novel Entrok Karya Okky Madasari,” Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2013.

[25] Endicott T. “Legal interpretation,” in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, A. Marmor, Ed. New York: the Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/s4-IX.221.239-b.

[26] Azwar S. Sikap Manusia. Teori dan Pengukurannya. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar; 1995.

[27] Natsir N. Hubungan Psikolinguistik dalam Pemerolehan dan Pembelajaran Bahasa. J. Retorika. 2017;10(1):20–9.

[28] Lorenzini D. “What is a ‘Regime of Truth’?” Le foucaldien, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.16995/lefou.2.

[29] Marbun R, Wijaya E. Language, Communication, and Law. Dismantling Binary Opposition in the Pre-Adjudication Sphere. 2019;(1): https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.5-8- 2019.2289787.

[30] Haryatmoko, “Menyingkap Kepalsuan Budaya Penguasa.” Maj. Basis 2003 Nov;53:11–12.

[31] Soekanto S. Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Penegakkan Hukum. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada; 2014.

[32] Soekanto S. Penegakan Hukum. Jakarta: Binacipta; 1983.

[33] Pontier JA. Rechtsvinding (Penemuan Hukum). Jakarta: Jendela Mas Pustaka; 2008.

[34] Isdian Anggraeny SA. KATA SEPAKAT DALAM PERJANJIAN DAN RELEVANSINYA SEBAGAI UPAYA PENCEGAHAN WANPRESTASI. Hukum. 2020;5(1):1–9.

[35] Pratiwi TS, Putri YR, Sugandi MS. “Analisis Semiotika Roland Barthes Terhadap Logo Calais Tea,” in e-Proceeding of Management. 2015;2(3):4327–4336.

[36] Wibowo W. Konsep Tindak Tutur Komunikasi. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara; 2016.

[37] Warsiman, “Keterkaitan Bahasa dan Logika dalam Berpikir Kritis,” J. Prosodi Bhs. dan Sastra Ingg. 2017;5(1): 1–15.

[38] Anggraeny I. Legal Review of Selling Land of Inheritance Without Approval of All Heirs. Leg. J. Ilm. Huk. 2020;28(1):107–20.

[39] Muliyono A, Marbun R. “Symbolic Dominance in the Criminal Law Enforcement Indonesia : Convergence Between the Trinity of Power and Truth-Games,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Law Reform (INCLAR 2021) Symbolic. 2021;590:45–50.

[40] Gadamer HG. Truth And Method. London, New York: Continuum; 2006.

[41] Grondin J. Einführung zu Gadamer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; 2000.

[42] Grondin J. Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. United States of America: Yale University; 1994. https://doi.org/10.5840/symposium1998216.

[43] Geuss R. Ide Teori Kritis. Habermas & Mahzab Frankfurt. Magelang: Panta Rhei Books; 2004.

[44] Marbun R. Dominasi Simbolik Dalam Penegakan Hukum Pidana Berdasarkan Perspektif Pierre-Felix Bourdieu. J. Esensi Huk. 2021;3(1):20–40.

[45] Habermas J. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press; 1972. https://doi.org/10.2307/588338.

[46] Marbun R. Hukum Pidana Yang Instrumental : Upaya Legitimasi Kepentingan Melalui Pengetahuan Berbasis Kekuasaan (Studi Multidisipliner Terhadap Ekstasi Komunikasi Sebagai Tindak Pidana Melalui Simulacra). J. Huk. Pembang. 2018;01(01):1–7.

[47] Marbun R, Maryano M, Ismail I. “The Ratio of Instrumental Action to Criminal Laws: Throwing in language game,” Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res., vol. 254, no. Conaplin 2018, pp. 116–119, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2991/conaplin-18.2019.24.

[48] Finlayson JG. HABERMAS. A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780192840950.001.0001.

[49] Putro WD. Kritik Terhadap Paradigma Positivisme Hukum. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing; 2011.

[50] Abrianto BO, Nugraha X, Grady N. Perkembangan Gugatan Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum oleh Pemerintah Pasca-Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014. Negara Huk. 2020;11(30):43–62.

[51] Mawardi I. Paradigma Baru PTUN: Respon Peradilan Administrasi terhadap Demokratisasi. Yogyakarta: Thafa Media; 2016.

[52] Hadjon PM. Perlindungan Hukum bagi Rakyat di Indonesia: Sebuah Studi tentang Prinsip-Prinsipnya, Penanganannya oleh Pengadilan dalam Lingkungan Peradilan Umum dan Pembentukan Peradilan Administrasi Negara. Surabaya: Bina Ilmu; 1987.

[53] Bimasakti MA. Onrechtmatig Overheidsdaad Oleh Pemerintah Dari Sudut Pandang Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan / Act Against the Law By the Government From the View Point of the Law of Government Administration. J. Huk. Peratun. 2018;1(2):265–86.

[54] Permana TCI. “Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Pasca Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan Ditinjau dari Segi Access to Justice,” J. Huk. dan Peradil. 2015;4(3): 419–442. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.3.2015.419-442..

[55] Szente Z. Conceptualising the principle of effective legal protection in administrative law. In: Szente Z, Lachmayer K, editors. The principle of effective legal protection in administrative law: A European perspective. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315553979.

[56] Noor HJ, Afkar K, Glaser H. Application of Sanctions Against State Administrative Officials Failing to Implement Administrative Court Decisions. Bestuur. 2021;9(1):53– 67.