Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.92
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Nurani: Jurnal Kajian Syariah dan Masyarakat Sriwijaya Law Review Jurnal Yudisial Jurnal Kewarganegaraan Jurnal Kepastian Hukum dan Keadilan Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia
Ramiyanto .
Unknown Affiliation
Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 16 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 16 Documents
Search

 1   2 
Presidential Permit to Summon Suspect of Corruption of the Member of the House of Representatives Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Sriwijaya Law Review VOLUME 2, ISSUE 2, JULY 2018
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28946/slrev.Vol2.Iss2.128.pp203-214

Abstract

Summoning the suspect is one step in the process of investigation in the criminal justice system which had been regulated in the Criminal Code Procedure and in other special laws. However, presenting the suspect of the member of the Parliament before the Court is the problematic one. This is because in reality, it does not need a President permit but legally it does. The problem is whether pre-senting the suspect before the court without a Presidential Permit is not against the law. The findings showed that the regulation dealing with the summoning of the parliament member suspected of cor-ruption is not necessarily required. It is because the crime suspected to the members of House of Rep-resentative is included in the special crime which is stipulated the 2002 Law Number 30 deals with Corruption Eradication Commission Article 46 paragraph (1) with the elucidation in junction to Arti-cle 245 paragraph (3) sub paragraph c.
LEGAL STANDING LEMBAGA SWADAYA MASYARAKAT ATAU ORGANISASI KEMASYARAKATAN DALAM PENGAJUAN PRAPERADILAN Ramiyanto Ramiyanto; Silfy Maidianti
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 14, No 3 (2021): LOCUS STANDI
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v14i3.462

Abstract

ABSTRAKPraperadilan atas penghentian penyidikan atau penuntutan perkara pidana di Indonesia saat ini dapat diajukan Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (LSM) atau Organisasi Kemasyarakatan (ORMAS) yang bertindak sebagai pihak ketiga yang berkepentingan. Menurut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 98/PUU-X/2012, LSM/ORMAS yang mengajukan praperadilan harus memiliki kepentingan dan tujuan yang sama dengan masyarakat yang diwakili, yaitu memperjuangkan kepentingan umum. Pada tataran praktis, tidak semua pengajuan praperadilan oleh LSM/ORMAS diterima pengadilan sebagaimana terlihat dalam Putusan Nomor 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt dan Nomor 111/Pid.Prap/2017/PN.Jkt.Sel. Rumusan penelitian ini, yaitu bagaimana pertimbangan hakim dalam kedua putusan tersebut? Apakah penafsiran hakim sudah tepat terkait dengan penentuan legal standing LSM/ORMAS? Penelitian ini termasuk ke dalam jenis penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder yang bersumber dari bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa legal standing LSM/ORMAS dalam pengajuan praperadilan ditentukan oleh tiga hal (syarat), yaitu: harus berbadan hukum, mempunyai kepentingan, dan memiliki kegiatan atau usaha nyata. Di antara ketiga hal (syarat) ini, yang menjadi perdebatan adalah mengenai kriteria kepentingan. LSM/ORMAS menurut hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 111/Pid/Prap/2017/PN.Jkt/Sel harus memiliki kepentingan dan tujuan tertentu serta ada kesamaan dengan perkara yang diajukan praperadilan. Kriteria tersebut tidak digunakan hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt. Perbedaan ini disebabkan oleh penggunaan metode penyempitan hukum ketika menafsirkan legal standing LSM/ORMAS dalam pengajuan praperadilan.Kata kunci: legal standing; lembaga swadaya masyarakat; organisasi masyarakat; praperadilan.ABSTRACTPretrial for termination of investigation or prosecution of criminal cases in Indonesia at this time can be submitted by Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) or public organizations acting as interested third parties. According to the Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 98/PUU-X/2012, NGOs or public organizations that apply for pretrials must have the same interests and goals as the people represented, which is to fight for the public interest. On a practical level, not all pretrial submissions by NGOs or public organizations are accepted by the court as seen in the Court Decision Number 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt and Number 111/Pid.Prap /2017/PN.Jkt.Sel. This research’s formulation of problem includes: what are the judge’s considerations in the two decisions? Is the judge’s interpretation on the determination of the NGOs or public organizations legal standing applicable? This research is classified as normative legal research using secondary data sourced from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study indicate that the legal standing of NGOs or public organizations in pretrial submissions is determined by three preconditions, which include having to be a legal entity, having an interest, and having real activities or businesses. Among the three, what is at issue is the criteria of interest. The NGOs or public organizations according to Court Decision Number 111/Pid/Prap/2017/PN.Jkt/Sel must have certain interests/goals and similarities to the cases submitted in the pretrial. However the judges did not put this criteria into practice in Court Decision Number 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt. This difference arises because of the legal narrowing method used when interpreting the legal standing of NGOs or public organizations in pretrial submissions. Keywords: legal standing; non-governmental organization; public organization; pre-trial. 
SAH ATAU TIDAKNYA PENETAPAN TERSANGKA SEBAGAI OBJEK GUGATAN PRAPERADILAN Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 8, No 2 (2015): FLEKSIBILITAS DAN RIGIDITAS BERHUKUM
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v8i2.51

Abstract

ABSTRAKPasal 1 angka 10 jo. Pasal 77 ayat (2) KUHAP tidak mengatur secara jelas dan tegas mengenai sah atau tidaknya penetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatanpraperadilan. Namun dalam Putusan Nomor 04/Pid.Prap/2015/PN.Jkt.Sel, hakim praperadilan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan telah menerima dan mengabulkan penetapan tersangka BG yang dilakukan oleh penyidikKPK tidak sah. Dari hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan, bahwa dasar hukum yang digunakan sebagai pertimbangan hakim adalah Pasal 77 jo. Pasal 82 ayat(1) jo. Pasal 95 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) KUHAP. Menurut hakim, penetapan tersangka terhadap BG oleh penyidik KPK merupakan bentuk dari “tindakan lain” aparat penegak hukum yang sewenang-wenang sebagaimana dimaksud Pasal 95 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) KUHAP. Kedua pasal tersebut sebenarnya lebih kuat digunakan sebagai salah satu alasan untuk menuntut ganti rugi karena seorang tersangka perkaranya dihentikan baik di tingkat penyidikan maupun penuntutan. Oleh karena itu, tidak tepat apabila kata “tindakan lain” yang dimaksuddijadikan dasar sah atau tidaknya penetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatan praperadilan. Pertimbangan hakim dalam memutuskan sah atau tidaknya penetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatan praperadilan seharusnya adalah atas dasar keadilan dengan keluar dari ketentuan KUHAP.Kata kunci: status tersangka, praperadilan, objek gugatan. ABSTRACTArticle 1 point (10) in conjunction with Article 77 paragraph (2) of Criminal Procedure Code does not clearly and explicitly regulates on the legitimacy of suspect status determination as an object of pretrial petition. However, the suspect status of BG submitted by the Corruption Eradication Commission was received and approved as illegitimate by the pretrial panel of judges though the Court Decision Number 04/Pid.Prap/2015/PN.Jkt.Sel. To analyze, it is resolved that the legal basis of the judgment consideration is Article 77 in conjunction with Article 82 paragraph (1) in conjunctionwith Article 95 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Determining BG as a graft suspect in the investigation of corruption cases conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission was regarded by the judges as a form of “measure” referring to the phrase in Article 95 paragraph (1) and (2) of CriminalProcedure Code, that is “‘other measures’ conducted by the arbitrary law enforcement officials.” These two articles are actually more appropriate when used by the suspect to seek redress, in the event that the case was stopped either at the level of investigation or prosecution. For that reason, it is not suitable if the term “othermeasure” issued as the legal basis of the determination of the suspect as the object of pretrial petition. The consideration of the pretrial panel of judges in decidingthe legitimacy of suspect status as the object of pretrial petition shall be made on the basis of justice at the first place by putting aside the provisions of the CriminalProcedure Code.Keywords: status of suspect, pretrial, object of petition.
PENJATUHAN PIDANA PENJARA BERSYARAT DALAM TINDAK PIDANA PERBANKAN Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 9, No 3 (2016): [DE]KONSTRUKSI HUKUM
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v9i3.14

Abstract

ABSTRAKDi Indonesia, tindak pidana perbankan diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 1992 tentang Perbankan. Di dalam undang-undang tersebut diatur secara tegas mengenai ancaman sanksi berupa pidana bagi pelanggarnya. Pasal 49 ayat (2) huruf b Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 telah mengatur ancaman pidana untuk tindak pidana perbankan dengan sistem minimum khusus, yaitu paling singkat tiga tahun penjara dan denda paling sedikit Rp.5.000.000.000,- (lima miliar rupiah). Majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 menjatuhkan pidana penjara bersyarat. Putusan tersebut membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Tanjung Karang (judex facti) Nomor 437/Pid.Sus/2013 yang menjatuhkan putusan bebas (vrijspraak). Majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 telah menjatuhkan pidana penjara di bawah ancaman minimum, yaitu selama enam bulan penjara dengan sistem bersyarat. Menurut Pasal 14 ayat (1) KUHP, pidana bersyarat hanya dapat dilakukan apabila majelis hakim menjatuhkan pidana penjara paling lama satu tahun. Analisis putusan ini berfokus pada pokok pertimbangan majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 terkait penjatuhan pidana penjara bersyarat, dilihat dari ketentuan lamanya ancaman pidana. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dan berkesimpulan bahwa penjatuhan pidana penjara bersyarat dalam kasus tersebut dapat dibenarkan dengan alasan demi keadilan serta fakta keseimbangan antara tingkat kesalahan pelaku dan keadaan yang melingkupinya.Kata kunci: penjatuhan pidana, pidana penjara bersyarat, tindak pidana perbankan.ABSTRACTBanking Crime in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 10 of 1998 on the amendment to Law Number 7 of 1992 on Banking. The law expressly set the criminal sanctions for any violation. Article 49 paragraph (2) point b of Law Number 10 of 1998, has been stipulated criminal sanctions for banking crime at a special minimum system, which is imprisonment a minimum for three years and fine for at least five billion rupiahs. In Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 concerning banking crime, the panel of judges imposes unconditional imprisonment. Judex facti of the District Court of Tanjung Karang in the decision has overturned the Decision Number 437/Pid.Sus/2013 which is a judgment of acquittal  (vrijspraak). The panel of judges in Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 has dropped the sentence to six-month in prison term, which is placed under the minimum penalty of acriminal sentence. According to Article 14 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing can only be compelling if a panel of judges dropped a maximum imprisonment of one year. The analysis focuses on the consideration of the panel of judges in making the Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 and sentencing conditional imprisonment in accordance to the criminal sanction and sentencing provisions. This analysis employs normative legal research methods and resolves that sentencing conditional imprisonment in this case is allowed for the sake of justice, as well as the facts, the balance between error level of the accused and the circumstances surrounding.Keywords: sentencing, conditional imprisonment sentence, banking crime.
MAKNA “AHLI WARIS” SEBAGAI SUBJEK PENGAJUAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 9, No 1 (2016): DIVERGENSI TAFSIR
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v9i1.31

Abstract

ABSTRAKPeninjauan Kembali (PK) merupakan salah satu dari upaya hukum luar biasa dalam hukum pidana Indonesia. Ahli waris merupakan salah satu pihak yang berhak mengajukan PK dalam perkara pidana sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP, yang rumusannya: “Terhadap putusan pengadilan yang memperoleh kekuatan hukum tetap, kecuali putusan bebas atau lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum, terpidana atau ahli warisnya dapat mengajukan permintaan peninjauan kembali kepada Mahkamah Agung.” Merujuk pada ketentuan itu, maka PK merupakan upaya hukum yang disediakan untuk melawan putusan pengadilan yang mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap (inkracht van gewijsde) yang berisi pemidanaan. Ketentuan itu mempunyai keterbatasan karena tidak diberikan batasan pengertian mengenai makna “ahli waris” yang menimbulkan permasalahan di dalam penerapannya terkait dengan penafsiran maknanya. Permasalahan itu timbul ketika majelis hakim Mahkamah Agung di dalam PutusanNomor 97 PK/Pid/Sus/2012 menerima PK yang diajukan isteri terpidana (ST) dengan dikategorikan sebagai ahli waris. Permasalahannya adalah “Apakah isteri seorang terpidana yang masih hidup dapat dikategorikan sebagai ahli waris?” Tulisan ini akan menganalisis penafsiran hukum hakim agung untuk menerima PK yang diajukan oleh istri ST dikaitkan dengan ajaran dan doktrin yang masih berlaku saat ini.Kata kunci: tafsir, ahli waris, peninjauan kembali. ABSTRACTCase review appeal is one of extraordinary legal remedies in the court proceeding of Procedural Criminal Code in Indonesia. Heir is a person or party entitled to file a petition for judicial review in criminal cases, as stipulated in Article 263, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, “of decision that has permanent legal force, except for judgment of acquittal or absolute discharge, felon or his heirs may file a petition for judicial review to Supreme Court. Referring to the provisions, a judicial review, is a legal action, which is provided against the court ruling, which has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde), related to criminal prosecution. The provision is imprecise since it does not set the meaning scope of the term “heir”; and in the implementation it results in problems related to its interpretation. Problems arise as the panel of judges of the Supreme Court in the Decision Number 97 PK/Pid/Sus/2012 accepted a petition for case review appeal filed by the wife of felon, ST, and regarded her as his beneficiary. The issue is whether the wife of a felon who are still alive can be considered as his heir? This analysis is discussing the legal interpretation of Supreme Court judges employed in accepting the petition for casereview filed by the wife of ST in regard to the prevailing jurisdictions and doctrines. Keywords: legal interpretation, heir, case review appeal.
BUKTI ELEKTRONIK SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI YANG SAH DALAM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 6, No 3 (2017)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.6.3.2017.463-484

Abstract

The Criminal Procedure Code as a general criminal procedure does not recognize electronic evidence as one of the admissible types of evidence. In practice, electronic evidence is also used as an admissible evidence to prove the criminal offenses in court. From the results of the discussion it can be concluded that electronic evidence in criminal procedure law is a dependent evidence and an independent evidence (substitution of letter proof if it meets the principle of functional equivalent approach and expansion of evidence) as specified in several special laws and instruments issued by the Supreme Court. The electronic evidence is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code as a lex generalis, however, to achieve material truth it can also be used as a valid evidence for the provision of all types of criminal offenses in court. It is based on recognition in the practice of criminal justice, some special laws, and instruments issued by the Supreme Court.Keywords: electronic evidence, admissible evidence, criminal procedure code, proof
Penjatuhan Pidana terhadap Korban Perkosaan yang Melakukan Aborsi Ramiyanto; Antoni
Jurnal Kewarganegaraan Vol 8 No 1 (2024): Juni 2024
Publisher : UNIVERSITAS PGRI YOGYAKARTA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31316/jk.v8i1.6478

Abstract

Abstrak Secara yuridis, korban perkosaan yang melakukan aborsi tidak dapat dijatuhi pidana sebagaimana diatur dalam UU-Kesehatan, UU-Perlindungan Anak dan PP No. 61 Tahun 2014. Secara praktis, ternyata anak korban perkosaan yang melakukan aborsi dijatuhi pidana sebagaimana terjadi di Pengadilan Negeri Muara Bulian, Jambi. Praktik itu kemudian dianulir oleh Pengadilan Tinggi Jambi, sehingga anak korban perkosaan yang melakukan aborsi tidak dijatuhi pidana (dibebaskan). Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif (yuridis-normatif) dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual. Kemudian pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan menggunakan teknik studi dokumen dan dianalisis secara kualitatif dengan teknik penafsiran hukum, serta selanjutnya penarikan kesimpulan dengan metode deduktif. Dari pembahasan dapat diketahui bahwa tidak semua korban perkosaan yang melakukan aborsi tidak dapat dijatuhi pidana yang ditentukan dalam hukum positif. Korban perkosaan yang melakukan aborsi yang tidak memenuhi syarat-syarat yang ditentukan dalam ketentuan perundang-undangan tetap dapat dijatuhi pidana sebagaimana ditentukan dalam hukum positif. Kata Kunci: Penjatuhan Pidana, Korban Perkosaan, Aborsi Abstract Juridically, rape victims who have abortions cannot be sentenced to criminal penalties as regulated in the Health Law, Child Protection Law, and PP no. 61 of 2014. In practical terms, it turns out that the child rape victim who had an abortion was sentenced to a criminal sentence as happened at the Muara Bulian District Court, Jambi. This practice was later annulled by the Jambi High Court, so that child rape victims who had abortions were not sentenced to criminal penalties (exonerated). The research method used in this paper is normative legal research (juridical-normative) with a statutory and contextual approach. Then data collection was carried out using document study techniques and analyzed qualitatively using legal interpretation techniques, and then conclusions were drawn using the deductive method. From the discussion, it can be seen that not all rape victims who have abortions cannot be sentenced to criminal penalties specified in positive law. Rape victims who have an abortion that does not fulfill the requirements specified in the statutory provisions can still be sentenced to criminal penalties as determined in positive law. Keywords: Imposing of Criminal, Rape Victim, Abortion
Kebijakan Formulasi Penghentian Penyidikan Perkara Korupsi dalam Perspektif Keadilan, Kemanfaatan, dan Kepastian Hukum Ramiyanto, Ramiyanto; Waliadin, Waliadin
Jurnal Kepastian Hukum dan Keadilan Vol 6, No 1 (2024): JURNAL KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32502/khk.v6i1.6287

Abstract

Saat ini, penyidikan perkara korupsi dapat dihentikan apabila penyidikannya tidak selesai dalam jangka waktu dua tahun. Aturan ini masih diperdebatkan yang dikaitkan dengan masalah keadilan, kemanfaatan, dan kepastian. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguraikan dan menjelaskan mengenai ide dan formulasi pengaturan penghentian penyidikan perkara korupsi dalam hukum positif dalam perspektif keadilan, kemanfaatan, dan kepastian. Penelitian ini termasuk ke dalam jenis penelitian hukum normatif dengan beberapa pendekatan. Temuan penelitian ini, yaitu pengaturan penghentian penyidikan perkara korupsi dalam hukum positif didasarkan pada ide penghormatan dan perlindungan HAM (tersangka) yang bermuara pada kepastian hukum. Formulasi pengaturan penghentian penyidikan perkara korupsi dalam hukum positif lebih menekankan pada segi kepastian, belum mencermikan keadilan dan kemanfaatan. Penghentian penyidikan perkara korupsi yang diatur dalam hukum positif perlu ditinjau kembali dari segi keadilan dan kemanfaatan. 
FORMULATION OF RULES CONCERNING ABORTION AGAINST OF VICTIMS RAPE: BETWEEN POSITIVE LAW AND FUTURE LAW Ramiyanto, Ramiyanto
Nurani Vol 20 No 2 (2020): Nurani: jurnal kajian syari'ah dan masyarakat
Publisher : Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah Palembang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19109/nurani.v20i2.6484

Abstract

Abstract: This paper aims to describe the rules regarding abortion of victims of rape in the positive law and law that may apply within the future. Based on the results of the discussion, it can be concluded that abortion of victims of rape in the positive law isn’t prohibited and the offenders are not sentenced as stated in Law no. 36 of 2009 and the Law of Child Protection. This also applies to a woman who has an abortion for her pregnancy as a result of rape. In the future law, abortion of victims of rape is also not prohibited, but can only be performed by a doctor. The Draft Criminal Code doesn’t stipulate that abortion can also be performed by rape victims themselves. Even so, the rules contained in the Draft Criminal Code still cannot be applied to rape victims who have had an abortion for their pregnancy because positive laws (especially Law No. 36 of 2009 and the Law of Child Protection) have not been revoked by the Draft Criminal Code. In this context, the principle of “lex specialist derogat lex generalist” applies, namely Law no. 36 of 2009 and the Law of Child Protection as laws that are specific override general laws. For the sake of legal certainty, the Draft Criminal Code should confirm prohibited and non-prohibited abortion. The future law needs to be synchronized or harmonized with the positive law. If it’s not prohibited, the granting of permission to abortion for victims of rape should be given strictly so, it’s not abused. Keywords: Formulation, Abortion, Victim of Rape, Positive Law, Future Law
ULTRA PETITA DECISIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INDONESIA Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 10, No 1 (2021)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.10.1.2021.173-196

Abstract

The imposition of ultra petita decisions in the practice of criminal law enforcement in Indonesia continues to be going on today. This paper tries to examine the ultra petita decisions with the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, and the principle of freedom and the active role of judges. In answering the problem, the writer makes use of a type of normative legal research that’s done by researching positive law. The results of the discussion display that the Criminal Procedure Code doesn’t prohibit judges from imposing ultra petita decisions. In examining criminal cases, the judge can impose decisions that are outside of the requisition or exceed the requisition of the public prosecutor. The Criminal Procedure Code only stipulates that the basis for the judge in imposing a decision is the bill of indictment. Justification for the imposition of decisions is also based on the principle of judge freedomand judges are active. Under these two principles, judges are free to impose decisions without influence from other parties and actively searching for out facts that are revealed in court for the realization of material truth as the aims of criminal procedural law. The writer's recommendations are: 1) Criminal law enforcers (judges, public prosecutors, lawyers/ defendants) need to form a common awareness that ultra petita decisions are permitted; 2) The rule by which the judge gives the ultra petita decisions needs to be made immediately, each for the short and long term.
Co-Authors Antoni Silfy Maidianti Waliadin Waliadin Waliadin, Waliadin