Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
3.383
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal JURNAL LITIGASI (e-Journal) Veritas et Justitia Jurnal Daulat Hukum Jurnal Akta Hasanuddin Law Review Jurnal Ius Constituendum Nagari Law Review Yurispruden: Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Malang Jurnal Yuridis PROGRESIF: Jurnal Hukum Jurnal GeoEkonomi JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW ARBITER: Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Hukum Al-Manhaj: Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial Islam Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis Jurnal Nuansa Akademik: Jurnal Pembangunan Masyarakat Law Development Journal Mimbar Hukum Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Supremasi Hukum: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Kanun: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Susilo, Erwin
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Humanities Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 26 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 26 Documents
Search

 1   2   3 
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 Agung Gunawan Ainal Mardhiah Asih, Wigati Taberi Din, Mohd. Kemala Sari, Gita Lilik Handayani Lufsiana Lufsiana, Lufsiana M. Rafi Mohd Din, Mohd Nainggolan, Hermin Negara, Dharma Setiawan Saputra, Dasriyan Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta Setiawan Negara, Dharma Suhaimi Suhaimi Suhaimi Sujatmiko, Bagus Syamsuyar, Khairul Umam Teuku Muttaqin Mansur Zaenal Arifin