Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Dialogia Iuridica
Arman Tjoneng
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Dialogia Iuridica

 1 
Diskursus Limitasi Hak Imunitas Ahli dalam Konstruksi Hukum Nasional Arman Tjoneng; Dian Narwastuty; Keysha Azkia Salsabila
Dialogia Iuridica Vol. 13 No. 2 (2022): Journal Dialogia Iuridica Vol 13, No.2 Year 2022
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Maranatha Christian University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28932/di.v13i2.4585

Abstract

Expert testimony in criminal evidence is needed to explain a case clearly so that the judge can decide a legal case with full objectivity. In fact, experts who provide their statements are often used as defendants because their statements are considered detrimental to the defendant's position so that the defendant sues the expert to court. The approach method used is a normative legal research method, namely legal research conducted by examining library materials or secondary data. The approach used is a statutory approach, a case approach and a conceptual approach. Experts have immunity in providing their statements based on professionalism and good faith, so that the Expert cannot be prosecuted either criminally or civilly. If forced, there will be a weakening of the independence of the Experts and will disrupt the existing judicial system. However, if the Expert in providing his statement is not based on good faith and manipulates the data so that it benefits a certain party, then the Expert can be prosecuted through the PMH channel. In order to strengthen the immunity of the Expert, there must be a strict rule stating the protection of the expert who has good intentions.
PENGAJUAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI OLEH JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM BERDASARKAN PASAL 30C UU NO. 11 TAHUN 2021 TENTANG PERUBAHAN UU NO. 16 TAHUN 2004 TENTANG KEJAKSAAN DIKAITKAN DENGAN PUTUSAN MK NO. 33/PUU-XIV/2016 DALAM PERSPEKTIF KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN Arman Tjoneng; Dian Narwastuty
Dialogia Iuridica Vol. 14 No. 2 (2023): Vol. 14 No. 2 (2023): Dialogia Iuridica Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 Year 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Maranatha Christian University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28932/di.v14i2.6377

Abstract

With the ratification of the prosecutor's law in 2021, it finally caused a polemic regarding the authority of the public prosecutor in filing a judicial review. The counter-opinion argues that the framers of the law did not understand the norms in the existing legislation. On the other hand, MK Decision No.33/PUU-XIV / 2016 which states that the review by the Public Prosecutor contrary to the code of Criminal Procedure is final and binding for anyone. Therefore, the prosecutor's authority in applying for judicial review is considered unlawful. But on the other side, the Internal Affairs of the prosecutor's actually took another view and strongly supported the authority for filing a judicial review by the prosecutor's under the new law. Based on this study, which uses normative juridical methods and legislative approaches and conceptual approaches, then with the ratification of the prosecutor's law in 2021, it is considered to provide more legal certainty for the authority of the public prosecutor in filing a judicial review and providing space for “justice” for victims and as an effort to correct and improve in realizing justice.
Co-Authors Dian Simanjuntak Narwastuty Keysha Azkia Salsabila