Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
4.169
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Yustisia 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 SIGn Jurnal Hukum 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 INJURLENS Open Access DRIVERset
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 Energy Engineering Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 32 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 32 Documents
Search

 1   2   3   4 
Reconstructing the Provisions on the Abatement of Pretrial Proceedings in Indonesian Criminal Procedure Law: Ensuring Equality Before the Law Negara, Dharma Setiawan; Susilo, Erwin; Lufsiana, Lufsiana
SIGn Jurnal Hukum Vol 5 No 2: Oktober 2023 - Maret 2024
Publisher : CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37276/sjh.v5i2.688

Abstract

Pretrial proceedings were designed as an instrument of judicial oversight to protect human rights from the arbitrariness of law enforcement authorities. Nevertheless, this philosophical expectation is contradicted by the reality of procedural malfunctions arising from legal loopholes in application abatement provisions. This research aims to examine the respondent’s power over case transfers critically and to formulate a norm reconstruction design for time limitations. This type of research is normative legal research that integrates the statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. Syllogistic analysis juxtaposes the ideal norms of justice with empirical findings from case studies of various court decisions. The research results show that the absence of a binding time limit has led to hasty case transfers by state instruments to evade judicial scrutiny. By overcoming this state of emergency, this research offers a novel, definitive time-limit protection mechanism design. For detained suspects, the validity of a case transfer is limited to 21 days from the date of the application’s registration. Conversely, for undetained suspects, the abatement provision is eliminated, subject to the prerequisite of physical presence at the hearing. Ultimately, the separation of time limits based on detention status constitutes the highest realization of substantive equality, dismantling state domination over the individual. This research recommends that the Supreme Court revoke the relevant administrative guidelines and urges lawmakers to incorporate this differentiation scheme into the renewal of the national criminal procedure law.
The Right to be Heard Prior to Judicial Proceedings: Human Rights and Fair Trial Deficiencies in Indonesian Pre-Trial Processes Susilo, Erwin; Din, Mohd.; Suhaimi, Suhaimi; Mansur, Teuku Muttaqin
Yustisia Vol 15, No 1: April 2026
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20961/yustisia.v15i1.102131

Abstract

The Protection from arbitrary detention is an essential component of a democratic judicial system and a core element of the right to a fair trial. However, in Indonesia, the previous and the newly passed Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) do not expressly require detained suspects to be presented before a judge during the pre-trial procedures. This circumstance raises questions about the effectiveness of judicial oversight over coercive methods and the realisation of procedural rights protected under human rights standards. The problem is of particular relevance, as the Indonesian pre-trial process serves a similar purpose to habeas corpus in many countries, which necessitates the detainee’s personal appearance before the court. This article employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Comparative analysis is conducted by examining habeas corpus regulations and judicial oversight mechanisms in England, the United States, India, the Philippines, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. The analysis demonstrates that the absence of an obligation to present detained suspects before a judge weakens procedural fairness, limits the suspect’s opportunity to be heard directly, and reduces the effectiveness of judicial supervision over detention. To address these shortcomings, reform of the KUHAP should provide an explicit requirement for the presentation of detained suspects in pretrial hearings and strengthen the active supervisory role of judges as a safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty
Co-Authors Agung Gunawan Ainal Mardhiah Asih, Wigati Taberi Din, Mohd. Kemala Sari, Gita Lilik Handayani Lufsiana Lufsiana, Lufsiana M. Hatta M. Rafi Mawla Ibnu Kamali , Karell Mohd Din, Mohd Nahdhah Nahdhah, Nahdhah Nainggolan, Hermin Negara , Dharma Setiawan Negara, Dharma Setiawan Saputra, Dasriyan Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta Setiawan Negara, Dharma Suhaimi Suhaimi Suhaimi Sujatmiko, Bagus Teuku Muttaqin Mansur Zaenal Arifin