Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
4.012
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal JURNAL LITIGASI (e-Journal) Arena Hukum Veritas et Justitia LEGITIMASI: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Politik Hukum Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM Jurnal Daulat Hukum Jurnal Akta Hasanuddin Law Review Jurnal Ius Constituendum Nagari Law Review Yurispruden Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum untuk Keadilan dan Kesejahteraan PROGRESIF: Jurnal Hukum Jurnal GeoEkonomi SIGn Jurnal Hukum JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW ARBITER: Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Hukum Al-Manhaj: Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial Islam Law Development Journal Mimbar Hukum Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Supremasi Hukum: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Business Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan INJURLENS Open Access DRIVERset
Susilo, Erwin
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Humanities Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Electrical & Electronics Engineering Energy Engineering Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 30 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 30 Documents
Search

 1   2   3 
The Innovation of Criminal Law Interpretation Model in Indonesia through Rule of Lenity Approach Susilo, Erwin; Negara, Dharma Setiawan; Lufsiana, Lufsiana
Jurnal Daulat Hukum Vol 8, No 3 (2025): September 2025
Publisher : Magister of Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/jdh.v8i3.47103

Abstract

This research aims to explore and develop an innovative concept of criminal law interpretation in Indonesia through the Rule of Lenity (RoL) approach. The RoL principle, originating from the common law system, emphasizes that ambiguous criminal provisions must be interpreted narrowly and always in favor of the defendant. Within Indonesia’s civil law system, adopting RoL has the potential to strengthen legal certainty, safeguard defendants’ human rights, and reduce the risk of arbitrariness in law enforcement practices. The study employs normative legal research methods, focusing on theoretical foundations of the principle of legality, established doctrines of statutory interpretation, and comparative analysis of RoL application in common law jurisdictions, particularly the United States. The findings suggest that RoL in Indonesia should only serve as a last resort, applied strictly when all existing interpretative methods still leave unresolved ambiguity. This ensures that RoL does not undermine legal predictability while simultaneously upholding fairness in criminal adjudication. The conclusion highlights the necessity of explicitly regulating RoL within Indonesian positive law. Such regulation would provide judges with clearer guidance, reinforce protections for defendants, and contribute to achieving a balanced criminal justice system. Ultimately, the integration of RoL offers a pathway for Indonesia to harmonize its civil law tradition with a principle that enhances justice and prevents potential abuse of prosecutorial and judicial discretion.
Natural Justice, Procedural Justice, and the Judge’s Role in the Pancasila-Based Rule of Law Susilo, Erwin
Yurispruden: Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Malang Vol 8 No 2 (2025): Yurispruden: Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Malang
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33474/yur.v8i2.23835

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between natural justice and procedural justice, as well as its implications for the role of judges within the Pancasila-based rule of law. Procedural justice is often misconstrued as mere compliance with formal rules, even though it essentially represents an embodiment of natural justice principles that require judicial proceedings to be fair, impartial, and transparent. Employing normative legal research with a conceptual and statutory approach, this study examines core principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, nemo judex in causa sua, and the obligation to provide reasoned judicial decisions. These principles are integral to procedural justice and constitute a constitutional mandate as enshrined in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In relation to Pancasila, judges bear a professional and moral responsibility to ensure that procedural justice is upheld as the foundation of fair trials and the legal protection of every citizen.
Integrating Spinoza’s Philosophy of Civil Law into Indonesian Judicial Reasoning: Toward a Justice-Oriented Legal Framework Susilo, Erwin
Supremasi Hukum: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Vol. 13 No. 2 (2024): Supremasi Hukum
Publisher : UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14421/c4016524

Abstract

Previous studies on Spinoza have generally focused on his political and theological philosophy, while the application of his concept of civil law in judicial decision-making practice has been rarely discussed, creating a research gap in the context of its application to modern legal systems. This research aims to integrate Spinoza's philosophy of civil law—rooted in rationality, equality, and moral order—into the framework of judicial consideration in Indonesia, where the balance between positive law and justice remains challenging. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, comparative, and conceptual approaches, this research examines relevant legal provisions and comparative practices from democratic countries such as the United States, France, Germany, India, and New Zealand, as well as the philosophical foundations of Spinoza's thinking on civil law and justice. The research findings indicate that Spinoza's view of law as a rational agreement based on moral necessity aligns with the principles of freedom, equality, and human dignity in the Indonesian Constitution. Integrating this idea into legal considerations can guide judges to move beyond formalistic interpretations towards justice oriented towards morality and humanity. Theoretically, this research contributes by offering a philosophical framework for rational legal reasoning, while practically providing a model for balancing legal certainty with moral justice in judicial practice and law enforcement in Indonesia.
Penerapan Teori Pada Hakikatnya Dalam Menafsirkan Tindak Pidana Narkotika Susilo, Erwin; Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta; Asih, Wigati Taberi
Nagari Law Review Vol 8 No 1 (2024): Nagari Law Review
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Andalas University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25077/nalrev.v.8.i.1.p.51-64.2024

Abstract

Narcotics crimes are classified as a serious crime. Therefore, good law enforcement is needed to overcome crime, primarily related to the implementation of articles of narcotic crime in the trial. There is a significant urgency to implement law enforcement methods to handle narcotics crimes. This study explores the method of interpretation options for judges in granting a judgment in case an act is proven valid and convincingly guilty in narcotics cases. This study uses normative legal research methods or doctrinal legal research, in which the researchers will study the application of criminal offenses by law enforcers. The researcher is guided by the objectives of punishment adopted by the related regulations, criminal procedural law, and material criminal law. This study finds alternative interpretations for judges in determining which articles are legally and convincingly proven guilty of narcotics crimes as regulated by the law. Thus, this research provides insight into the importance of integrating theory and practice in criminal law for narcotics. The study also recommends strategies to increase the effectiveness of just law enforcement in narcotics cases.
PENDEKATAN FAVOR DEFENSIONIS DALAM MEREALISASIKAN HAK TERDAKWA UNTUK MENGHADIRKAN SAKSI ATAU AHLI Susilo, Erwin; Rafi, Muhammad
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 10 No. 2 (2024): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v10i2.8479

Abstract

According to Article 66 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, public prosecutors are authorized to summon witnesses or experts to strengthen their case against a defendant. In contrast, the defendant is under no obligation to do the same but retains the right to present witnesses or experts in their defense (Article 65). However, challenges arise when defendants must summon witnesses without the backing of pro justitia status, complicating the legitimacy of such summonses. Employing a normative legal approach, it analyzes relevant laws, doctrines, norms, and practices to address the legal inadequacies surrounding the defendant’s right to present exculpatory witnesses or experts, utilizing the Favor Defensionis (FD) doctrine to address these challenges. Key findings include the following: 1) witnesses and experts play a vital role in ensuring verdicts are based on substantive truth, thereby affirming the defendant’s right to present a defense in line with equality of arms and due process principle; 2) ambiguities regarding the pro justitia legitimacy of defendants’ summonses create hesitation among witnesses or experts, impacting their willingness to appear in court; and 3) the FD doctrine supports legal interpretations that favor the defendant to maintain judicial balance. Under this doctrine, public prosecutors should summon witnesses or experts at the request of the defendant or the judge, with judges authorized to order such actions. This approach enables judges’ active judicial participation while preserving defendant’s right to independently call witnesses or experts to support their defense.
KONSTRUKSI YURIDIS PENGATURAN BANTUAN JURU BAHASA BAGI TERDAKWA Susilo, Erwin; Rafi, Muhammad
LITIGASI Vol. 25 No. 2 (2024)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pasundan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23969/litigasi.v25i2.17359

Abstract

The defendant has the right to present a defense, and to guarantee that the defendants must understand the facts that arise during trials. The Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), yet still superficial, does regulate the mechanism for appointing an interpreter. This study aims to elaborate: first, the urgency of an interpreter during trial; and second, how the law regulates the existence of an interpreter assistance for defendants. This research uses a normative juridical method. Based on the problem mentioned above, the conclusion is as follows: First, the appointment of an interpreter aims to ensure equality between the defendant and the prosecutor. Those conditions will lead to a verdict based on substantive truth by the judge. Second, the judge must use an official decree to appoint an interpreter, granting them legal authority during the trial. Before the interpreter translates any facts in the trial, they must first take an oath or pledge. An interpreter who provides intentionally false translations will be charged under Article 242 of the Criminal Code. Additionally, an interpreter who has been appointed but fails to fulfill their duties can be penalized under Article 224 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, and if the interpreter unlawfully fails to appear, they can be penalized under Article 522 of the Criminal Code. This study recommends that future reforms of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly state that judges should appoint interpreters through official decrees and interpreters should be certified and integrated into the criminal justice system.
Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: A Critical Examination of Repeated Suspect Status in Indonesia Susilo, Erwin; Din, Mohd.; Suhaimi, Suhaimi; Mansur, Teuku Muttaqin
Hasanuddin Law Review VOLUME 10 ISSUE 3, DECEMBER 2024
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20956/halrev.v10i3.6088

Abstract

The Indonesian criminal justice system faces critical issues with the repeated designation of individuals as suspects, which compromises legal certainty and the protection of human rights. This study provides a critical analysis of the procedural and ethical consequences of repeated suspect designations within the framework of Indonesia's Criminal Procedure Code. This study employs a doctrinal legal research methodology, incorporating statute, case and conceptual approaches. The results show that pretrial judges assess the validity of suspect designations based on procedural and formal principles. Their authority is confined to reviewing formal aspects. These limitations underscore that pretrial proceedings focus solely on administrative and procedural compliance rather than the substantive merits of the case. This formalist perspective follows civil procedural principles, emphasizing procedural correctness over material truth. While pretrial judges can annul a suspect designation, investigators can re-designate the person as a suspect if new evidence is presented. Such a reform would ensure a more balanced relationship between judicial oversight and investigative authority, minimizing arbitrary practices and enhancing procedural fairness. However, the recurring practice of re-designating suspects raises a significant flaw in the system, undermining legal certainty and eroding public trust.
Transforming Amicus Curiae Through an Experimental Jurisprudence Framework in Judicial Decision-Making Susilo, Erwin; Sujatmiko, Bagus; Arifin, Zaenal
JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW Vol. 8 No. 3 (2025): DECEMBER
Publisher : Universitas Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26623/julr.v8i3.12689

Abstract

This study examines the contemporary role of amicus curiae in strengthening judicial reasoning through the integration of the Experimental Jurisprudence (X-Jur) framework within the Indonesian legal system. The research addresses the absence of explicit regulations governing amicus curiae despite its increasing use in high-profile cases, creating inconsistencies in judicial treatment and undermining normative clarity. Using a normative legal method complemented by statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case approaches, this study analyzes the doctrinal position of amicus curiae and evaluates its potential as an epistemic instrument that enriches judicial deliberations with empirical, psychological, and social perspectives. The findings demonstrate that amicus curiae provides valuable epistemic input that enhances judicial reflection; however, its current acceptance remains discretionary and fragmented due to the lack of procedural guidelines. The integration of X-Jur reveals a strong empirical connection between public perceptions of justice and judicial reasoning, offering a data-driven foundation for improving the legitimacy and social responsiveness of court decisions. The novelty of this research lies in conceptualizing amicus curiae as a methodological bridge between normative doctrine and empirical cognition, and in proposing a regulatory model—through a Supreme Court Regulation—that institutionalizes amicus curiae as a formal mechanism within Indonesia’s civil law tradition. This framework is essential for strengthening transparency, judicial reflectiveness, and the pursuit of substantive justice in modern adjudication.  
Access to Justice: An Effective Pretrial Model to Guarantee the Right to Defense for Suspects in Indonesia Susilo, Erwin; Din, Mohd; Suhaimi; Mansur, Teuku Muttaqin
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 14 No 2 (2025)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.14.2.2025.317-350

Abstract

This paper examines the ineffectiveness of the pretrial mechanism in Indonesia in guaranteeing the right of suspects to submit and request examination of exculpatory evidence during the investigation stage. Although the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) provides a legal basis for this right, no rules guarantee that investigators will conduct such examinations, as evidenced by several cases in which investigators ignored such requests. This study is normative legal research, employing a statutory, conceptual, and comparative approach. It compares the Brady Rule in the United States, which requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant, and the Dutch model of the 'rechter-commissaris', which grants judges the authority to oversee investigative actions actively. The results of this study recommend expanding the authority of pretrial judges to order investigators to examine mitigating evidence based on requests from the suspect or their legal counsel. This reform is important to realize the principles of fair trial, favor defensionis, and equality of arms, as well as to strengthen constitutional protection of human rights and the values of Pancasila. Preliminary hearings, as conceptualized here, can address the injustices that remain unresolved despite decades since the enactment of the CPC in 1981.
Judicial Decisions and Legal Autopoiesis: Law as a Living System Susilo, Erwin
AL-MANHAJ: Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial Islam Vol. 7 No. 1 (2025)
Publisher : Fakultas Syariah INSURI Ponorogo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37680/almanhaj.v7i1.7882

Abstract

Law, as a living system, evolves through continuous communication, enabling it to adapt to social changes and technological advancements. This research examines the question of how law reproduces itself within the framework of judicial decision-making in Indonesia, to explain the theoretical and practical roles of judges in maintaining the vitality of the legal system. Using a normative-conceptual (doctrinal-philosophical) approach, this research combines Niklas Luhmann's autopoiesis theory, Hans Kelsen's pure law theory, Jürgen Habermas's communicative action theory, Ronald Dworkin's concept of law as integrity, and Pierre Bourdieu's theory of symbolic power to analyze how judicial decisions function as a mechanism for legal reproduction. The research results show that judges in Indonesia not only apply existing norms but also interpret and reconstruct them to align with social and technological developments. For example, this is evident in Supreme Court Decisions Number 1794 K/Pdt/2004 and Number 230/G/TF/2019/PTUN-JKT, which demonstrate how judges' legal considerations integrate normative coherence, communicative legitimacy, and social responsiveness. This research concludes that law in Indonesia functions as an autopoietic system—capable of independently reproducing itself, adapting, and sustaining itself through judicial communication, thus remaining relevant, legitimate, and responsive to the dynamics of contemporary society.
Co-Authors Ainal Mardhiah Asih, Wigati Taberi Din, Mohd. Kemala Sari, Gita Lufsiana Lufsiana, Lufsiana M. Hatta M. Rafi Mawla Ibnu Kamali , Karell Mohd Din, Mohd Nahdhah Nahdhah Nainggolan, Hermin Negara , Dharma Setiawan Negara, Dharma Setiawan Sari, Iustika Puspa Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta Setiawan Negara, Dharma Suhaimi Suhaimi Suhaimi Sujatmiko, Bagus Teuku Muttaqin Mansur Zaenal Arifin