Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Spektrum Hukum Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum dan Dinamika Masyarakat
Aditya Andela Pratama
Universitas Diponegoro
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Legislative Overreach dalam Pemanggilan Perkara oleh DPR sebelum Putusan Pengadilan Muhammad Amri Bintang; Hadi - Pratama; Hengko Hengko; Aditya Andela Pratama
JURNAL ILMIAH HUKUM DAN DINAMIKA MASYARAKAT Vol 24, No 2 (2026): Hukum dan Masyarakat
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas 17 Agustus (UNTAG) Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56444/hdm.v24i2.7423

Abstract

ABSTRACT; House of Representatives (DPR) commissions increasingly invite law enforcement officials, victims, and other parties to discuss cases that are still under adjudication and have not yet reached a final, legally binding status. This practice is often framed as the exercise of the House’s oversight function; however, the discussions frequently delve into specific facts, evidence, and even the prosecution’s demands in concrete cases. This article examines the threshold at which such summonses remain a legitimate form of oversight versus when they cross into "legislative overreach" that infringes upon the independence of the judiciary. Employing a normative-juridical methodology, this study utilizes statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The findings indicate that while the 1945 Constitution and the Law on the Composition and Status of the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD (UU MD3) direct the House’s oversight toward institutional policy and performance—rather than the assessment of individual cases—there is no explicit written rule prohibiting the discussion of ongoing litigation. This regulatory gap allows public hearings to devolve into forums that resemble judicial proceedings, potentially shaping public opinion prior to a verdict and exerting pressure on judges and public prosecutors. This article proposes five parameters to distinguish legitimate oversight from legislative overreach—namely, the object, timing, substance, output, and impact—and suggests incorporating a *sub judice* rule into the House’s Rules of Procedure to ensure that oversight can continue without interfering with the judicial process.
Penyelidikan Sebagai Objek Praperadilan Perspektif Keadilan Progresif Edy Sugiarto; Aditya Andela Pratama
SPEKTRUM HUKUM Vol 23, No 2 (2026): Jurnal Spektrum
Publisher : PMIH Untag Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56444/sh.v23i2.7420

Abstract

Investigation is the initial stage in the criminal justice process which has an important role in determining the follow-up of law enforcement. However, Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has not regulated investigations as pretrial objects, thus causing limitations in legal protection against investigators' actions that have the potential to harm citizens' rights. This study aims to analyze the urgency of investigation as a pretrial object based on the perspective of progressive justice and the role of judges in receiving pretrial applications related to investigations. This research is a doctrinal law research with a legislative, conceptual, and philosophical approach. The results of the study show that investigations are an important part of the criminal justice system that should be supervised through pretrial mechanisms. In the perspective of progressive law, judges not only play the role of law enforcers, but also as inventors of laws that can fill the gaps in norms to realize substantive justice. Therefore, pretrial acceptance of investigative actions is a form of progressive legal implementation to strengthen the protection of human rights and ensure the achievement of comprehensive justice
Co-Authors Edy Sugiarto Hadi - Pratama Hengko Hengko Muhammad Amri Bintang