Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
3.658
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal JURNAL LITIGASI (e-Journal) Veritas et Justitia LEGITIMASI: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Politik Hukum Jurnal Daulat Hukum Jurnal Akta Hasanuddin Law Review Jurnal Ius Constituendum Nagari Law Review Yurispruden: Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Malang Jurnal Yuridis Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum untuk Keadilan dan Kesejahteraan PROGRESIF: Jurnal Hukum Jurnal GeoEkonomi JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW ARBITER: Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Hukum Al-Manhaj: Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial Islam Jurnal Nuansa Akademik: Jurnal Pembangunan Masyarakat Law Development Journal Ius Poenale Mimbar Hukum Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Supremasi Hukum: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Business Kanun: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Susilo, Erwin
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Humanities Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Electrical & Electronics Engineering Engineering Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 28 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 28 Documents
Search

 1   2   3 
Critiquing the Use of the Term Restorative Justice in Narcotics Cases Susilo, Erwin; Setiawan Negara, Dharma
Jurnal Ius Constituendum Vol. 10 No. 3 (2025): OCTOBER
Publisher : Magister Hukum Universitas Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26623/jic.v10i3.12150

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the appropriateness of using the term “Restorative Justice” (RJ) in the settlement of narcotics cases at the investigation and inquiry stages in Indonesia, as regulated under the Regulation of the Chief of the Indonesian National Police Number 8 of 2021 concerning the Handling of Criminal Offenses Based on Restorative Justice (INPR 8/2021). The background of this research arises from the conceptual tension between RJ’s core principles—namely, victim-offender dialogue and community involvement—and the actual practice in narcotics cases, where the offender is simultaneously the victim and no external harmed party is present. The urgency of this writing lies in the widespread use of RJ terminology in policy documents without adequate alignment to its philosophical foundations, which may create confusion in legal interpretation and practice. Using normative juridical methods, this research employs conceptual and statutory approaches to find that the substance of INPR 8/2021 is more aligned with Rehabilitation Theory (RT), particularly the medical model, which views the offender as a patient in need of treatment rather than as a morally responsible agent. This study provides a novel conceptual clarification by framing INPR 8/2021 within the medical model of rehabilitation rather than traditional RJ. This reinterpretation contributes to more accurate legal discourse and supports the development of coherent and normatively sound drug policy frameworks in Indonesia, ensuring that the use of legal terminology reflects the actual purpose and design of the policy.
Restoring Victims of Wrongful Arrest: Automatic Compensation through a Parallel Justice Approach Susilo, Erwin; Negara, Dharma Setiawan; Lufsiana, Lufsiana
Law Development Journal Vol 7, No 3 (2025): September 2025
Publisher : Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/ldj.7.3.375-391

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the weaknesses of the existing compensation mechanism for victims of wrongful arrest in the criminal justice system and to propose a reform model based on the principle of Parallel Justice (PJ). Although Indonesian law, particularly the Criminal Procedure Code and Government Regulation No. 92/2015, already provides a legal basis for compensation, the mechanism remains petition-based and dependent on victims’ initiative through pre-trial proceedings. Such a passive system creates structural injustice and fails to guarantee effective recovery for victims of state error. The research method used in this study is normative legal research, employing statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The statutory approach is applied to examine the positive law in Indonesia regarding compensation. The conceptual approach is used to analyze and reformulate the theory of compensation by incorporating the PJ framework developed by Susan Herman, which emphasizes proactive victim restoration. The comparative approach reviews practices in other jurisdictions such as Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and the United States to identify models of automatic compensation that can be adapted into the Indonesian context. The novelty in this research is the application of the Parallel Justice concept—originally designed for crime victims in general—to the context of wrongful arrest caused by state authorities. This adaptation provides a new paradigm in Indonesian criminal procedure by positioning victims of wrongful arrest not merely as claimants but as individuals entitled to automatic state responsibility. Based on the research, it is concluded that adopting the PJ approach can create a more responsive, victim-oriented, and automatic compensation system. Such reform would strengthen the protection of human rights, enhance public trust in the legal system, and ensure that victims of wrongful arrest are restored fairly, quickly, and comprehensively.
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.
KEWENANGAN HAKIM MELAKUKAN PENAHANAN TERHADAP TERDAKWA YANG DALAM PERKARA SEBELUMNYA KEBERATAN TERDAKWA/PENASIHAT HUKUM DITERIMA Susilo, Erwin; Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta
Jurnal Yuridis Vol 11 No 1 (2024): Jurnal Yuridis
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jyur.v11i1.7271

Abstract

In cases where the objection raised by the Defendant/Legal Advisor is accepted, the Defendant must be released from detention, allowing the Public Prosecutor to initiate a fresh prosecution with an amended indictment. Challenges arise during re-prosecution concerning the authority of the District Court Judge to order detention. This research adopts a normative legal approach. The findings indicate that, firstly, the District Court Judge lacks the authority to detain the Defendant, as the release from detention resulted solely from an error by the Public Prosecutor in indictment preparation. Re-detention by the District Court Judge is deemed a violation of the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality before the law. Secondly, future reforms to the Criminal Procedure Code should encompass provisions for the release of the Defendant from detention upon acceptance of objection, coupled with a confirmation of the District Court Judge's non-authorization to detain in the subsequent case. This study recommends a reform of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to enhance legal certainty regarding the detention of the Defendant in subsequent cases. Keywords: Indictment, Objection, Detention, Public Prosecutor, and Defendant.
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.
Co-Authors Agung Gunawan Ainal Mardhiah Asih, Wigati Taberi Didit Darmawan Din, Mohd. Kemala Sari, Gita Lilik Handayani Lufsiana, Lufsiana M. Hatta M. Rafi Mawla Ibnu Kamali , Karell Mohd Din, Mohd Nainggolan, Hermin Negara, Dharma Setiawan Rommy Hardyansah Saputra, Dasriyan Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta Setiawan Negara, Dharma Suhaimi Suhaimi Suhaimi Sujatmiko, Bagus Teuku Muttaqin Mansur Zaenal Arifin