Annisa Nur Fitriyani
Universitas Muslim Indonesia

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Counsel's Procedural Objection Under Indonesia's 2025 Criminal Procedure Code: Safeguarding Suspects and Regulating Unlawfully Obtained Evidence Purnomo Nur Sidi; Annisa Nur Fitriyani
Punggawa Global Research: Jurnal Multidisiplin Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Punggawa Global Research
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Indonesia's 2025 Criminal Procedure Code expressly authorizes defence counsel to object when investigators intimidate a suspect or use trapping questions, yet it does not state what follows when the objection is obstructed, ignored, or incompletely recorded. This article examines the legal character, scope, and consequences of that new authority through normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches. It argues that Article 32 transforms legal assistance during suspect examination from physical attendance into participatory defence. The objection operates as an immediate corrective intervention and a documentary safeguard, while the investigator bears a correlative duty to record it regardless of agreement with counsel's assessment. Intimidation should be assessed by its effect on the suspect's freedom to provide or refuse information, whereas a trapping question embeds an unaccepted premise and narrows the suspect's answer around it. An ignored objection does not automatically nullify the examination record or the entire investigation. Its evidentiary consequence depends on a demonstrable connection between the procedural violation and evidence later tendered at trial. Under Article 235, only a judicial finding that evidence was unlawfully obtained triggers non-use and the loss of probative force. The article proposes a graduated legal-consequence model that separates obstruction of counsel, defective recording, continued improper questioning, evidentiary exclusion, and personal accountability of investigators.
Crime aboard Ships: Criminal Jurisdiction and the Problem of Enforcement beyond Territorial Waters Purnomo Nur Sidi; Annisa Nur Fitriyani
Punggawa Social Inquiry: Journal of Crime, Culture, and Social Dynamics Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): Punggawa Social Inquiry 1(2) 2026 : September
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.67707/psi.v1i2.119

Abstract

Crimes committed aboard ships outside territorial waters expose a recurring weakness in maritime criminal law. The problem is often framed as uncertainty over which state has jurisdiction, although the harder question appears after a jurisdictional basis has been identified. A flag state may be entitled to prosecute, another state may rely on the nationality of the offender or victim, and a port state may later gain physical access to the vessel. None of those connections guarantees arrest, evidence preservation, witness availability, or prosecution. This article examines the separation between jurisdictional entitlement and enforcement capacity through doctrinal analysis of UNCLOS, relevant maritime-security instruments, international decisions, and. Article 92 is read primarily as a rule against unauthorized enforcement on the high seas rather than a complete bar to concurrent prescriptive or adjudicative claims. The overlap can be legally manageable, while enforcement remains fragmented by ship mobility, weak flag-state control, dispersed evidence, and dependence on later port access. A sequenced model of cooperation is proposed that preserves flag-state primacy while enabling early evidence preservation, notification, port-state assistance, and coordinated prosecution decisions.