Published date: Oct 04 2022

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

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

Pages: 219–231

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12092

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

Iskandar Muda SipayungFaculty of Law Labuhanbatu University, Rantauprapat, North Sumatra, Indonesia

The process of examining pretrial applications, through Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016, is determined to only seek formal truth. Therefore, the Pretrial Sole Judge is required to only examine the formal requirements of legal action as a coercive measure as stipulated in the pretrial object in Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, prior to the emergence of the provisions of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court through Decision Number 21/PUU-XIII/2014 has expanded the object of pretrial not only those contained in the decision but through legal considerations. This study aims to find an extension of the paradigm in determining procedural law in examining pretrial applications. This study uses legal research methods through literature study. The results of this study indicate that there are two pretrial object models that shift the paradigm in the process of examining pretrial applications from a quasi-civil procedure law with the search for the formal truth, to a quasi-criminal procedure law with the search for material truth, through the establishment of the Prudential Principle and Subjective Action as the object of a pretrial application.

Keywords: pretrial, criminal procedure law, constitutional court

[1] Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. .

[2] Rumokoy NK. Eksistensi ‘Afdoening Buiten Process’ Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. UNSRAT Repos. 2016;4(7):12–23.

[3] Reza Hafidzan DH, Agus Priyono E. TINJAUAN TENTANG PEMBAHARUAN KUHAP SEBAGAI LANDASAN BEKERJANYA SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA DI INDONESIA PENULISAN HUKUM. Diponegoro Law J. 2016;5(3):1–13.

[4] Sofyan A. Hukum Acara Pidana Suatu Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Rangkang Education; 2013.

[5] Marbun R. PASIVITAS FUNGSI ADVOKAT DALAM PROSES PRA-ADJUDIKASI: MEMBONGKAR TINDAKAN KOMUNIKATIF INSTRUMENTAL PENYIDIK. J. Huk. Samudra Keadilan. 2020 Jun;15(1):17–35.

[6] Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014. Jakarta.

[7] Tongat T. Tongat, “Rekonstruksi Politik Hukum Pidana Nasional (Telaah Kritis Larangan Analogi dalam Hukum Pidana),”. J. Konstitusi. 2016 May;12(3):524–41.

[8] Angara, “Naskah Akademik dan Rancangan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung tentang Hukum Acara Praperadilan,” pp. 1–2, 1987.

[9] Barlyan NK. Penetapan Tersangka & Praperadilan : Serta Perbandingan di Sembilan Negara. Depok: Rajawali Press; 2020.

[10] Azwar S. Sikap Manusia : Teori dan Pengukurannya / Saifuddin Azwar. 2nd ed. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar; 1995.

[11] Marbun R. “Trichotomy of Relation Through Instrumental Communication in Pre- Adjudication Stage: The Failure of Criminal Procedure Code to Foster Law Enforcement Attitudes,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Education, Humanities, Health and Agriculture, ICEHHA 2021, 3-4 June 2021, Ruteng, Flores, Indonesia, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.3-6-2021.2310893.

[12] Peters GJ, Ruiter RA, Kok G. Threatening communication: a qualitative study of fear appeal effectiveness beliefs among intervention developers, policymakers, politicians, scientists, and advertising professionals. Int J Psychol. 2014 Apr;49(2):71– 9.

[13] Marbun R, Wijaya E. “Language, Communication, and Law: Dismantling Binary Opposition in the Pre-Adjudication Sphere,” in Proceedings of the Proceedings of First International Conference on Culture, Education, Linguistics and Literature, CELL 2019, 5-6 August, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia, 2019. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.5-8-2019.2289787.

[14] Marbun R, Oedoyo W, Sinaga DM. LOGIKA MONOLOG DALAM TRIKOTOMI RELASI PADA PROSES PRA-ADJUDIKASI. J. USM LAW Rev. 2021 Jun;4(1):1.

[15] Effendi E. Relevansi Pemeriksaan Calon Tersangka sebelum Penetapan Tersangka. Undang J. Huk. 2020 Dec;3(2):267–88.

[16] Purba TL. Praperadilan Sebagai Upaya Hukum Bagi Tersangka. Papua Law J. 2018 Oct;1(2):253–70.

[17] Gündoğan E. “Conceptions of Hegemony in Antonio Gramsci’s Southern Question and the Prison Notebooks.” New Propos. J. Marx. Interdiscip. Inq. 2008;2(1).

[18] J J; J. J. Kebenaran Materil dalam Kajian Hukum Pidana. REUSAM J. Ilmu Huk. 2021 Apr;8(2):118.

[19] Sutikna, “Implementasi Praperadilan Dalam Melindungi Hak-Hak Tersangka Dan Pihak Ketiga Di Pengadilan Negeri Sleman,” Univ. Islam Indones., 2016.

[20] Marbun R. Telaah Kritis-Filosofis Praktik Peradilan Pidana: Membongkar Oposisi Biner antara Kekuasaan dan Kewenangan. Yogyakarta: CV. Arti Bumi Intaran, 2019.

[21] Marbun R. Trikotomi Relasi dalam Penetapan Tersangka: Menguji Frasa ‘Pemeriksaan Calon Tersangka’ Melalui Praperadilan. Undang J. Huk. 2021 Jun;4(1):159–90.

[22] Marbun R. Komunikasi Instrumental Berbasis Trikotomi Relasi: Kewenangan Interpretasi Penyidik DalamMenetapkan Seseorang Sebagai Tersangka. J. Huk. Pidana Kriminologi. 2021;2(1):20–33.

[23] Syahputra A, Marbun R. “Double Standards of Law Enforcement in the Covid-19 Pandemic Era in Indonesia : A Relationship Trichotomy Study,” 2nd Int. Conf. Law Reform. 2021; 590(2):51–56.

[24] Marbun R. DOMINASI SIMBOLIK DALAM PENEGAKAN HUKUM PIDANA BERDASARKAN PERSPEKTIF PIERRE-FELIX BOURDIEU. Esensi Huk. 2021 Jun;3(1):20–40.

[25] Marbun R. Konferensi Pers Dan Operasi Tangkap Tangan Sebagai Dominasi Simbolik : Membongkar Kesesatan Berpikir Dalam Penegakan Hukum Pidana Press Conference And Hand Catch Operations As Symbolic Domination : Dismantling Fallacy In Criminal Law Enforcement. Ius Const. 2022;7(1):1–18.

[26] Fatmawati NI. “PIERRE BOURDIEU DAN KONSEP DASAR KEKERASAN SIMBOLIK,” Madani J. Polit. dan Sos. Kemasyarakatan. 2020 Feb;12(1):41–60.

[27] Zurmailis Z, Faruk F. “DOKSA, KEKERASAN SIMBOLIK DAN HABITUS YANG DITUMPANGI DALAM KONSTRUKSI KEBUDAYAAN DI DEWAN KESENIAN JAKARTA.” Adab. J. Bhs. dan Sastra. 2018 Jan;1(1):44. https://doi.org/10.14421/ajbs.2017.01103.

[28] Marbun R. Narasi Tunggal (Grand Narrative) Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Suatu Keterlemparan dalam Simulacra. Soumatera Law Rev. 2020;3(1):1–9.

[29] Horkheimer M, Adorno TW, Sahidah A. Dialektika Pencerahan : Mencari Identitas Manusia Rasional. Yogyakarta: IRCiSoD, 2014.

[30] Safruddin M. “Hermeneutika al- Qur ’ an Modern (Studi Kasus Pemikiran Edip Yuksel) Diajukan kepada Sekolah Pascasarjana UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta,” 2021.

[31] Novia AI. Dekonstruktif Jacques Derrida. Surabaya: Sebuah Filsafat Anti Metafisika; 2019.

[32] Marbun R, Armilius N. “FALLACY (SESAT PIKIR) ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM DALAM MOTIVERING VONNIS (PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM) / THE ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM FALLACY IN MOTIVERING VONIS (LEGAL REASONING),” J. Huk. dan Peradil. 2018 Jul;7(2):327. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.7.2.2018.327-352.

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

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

[35] Pemerintah Kota Yogyakarta. “Arti ‘Menimbang’ dan ‘Mengingat’ Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan,” jogjakota.go.if, 2022.

[36] Indonesia R. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 3/PUU-XI/2013. Jakarta, 2013.

[37] Indonesia R. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 102/PUU-XIII/2015. Jakarta, 2015.

[38] Arsal, Wawasan Penegakan Hukum Dan Keadilan Dalam Al-Qur’an (Studi Kajian Pendekatan Tematik). Padang: IAIN Bukittinggi Press; 2016.

[39] Wibowo W, Aningtyas RD. Konsep Tindak Tutur Komunikasi. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara; 2016.