Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : LEGAL BRIEF

The Absence of Legal Consequences for Ignoring the Obligation to Submit SPDP to the Reporter and the Reported Party: A Review of the Implementation of Constitutional Court Decision Number 130/PUU-XIII/2015 Kusnadi, Yedi; Tangdilintin, Arya Ramadhan; Syahird, Ahmad
LEGAL BRIEF Vol. 14 No. 4 (2025): October: Law Science and Field
Publisher : IHSA Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35335/legal.v14i4.1425

Abstract

This study aims to examine in depth the legal aspects of the neglect of the obligation to submit SPDP to the reporter and the reported party after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015. This research is of a normative legal nature, with data collection techniques conducted through library research, namely laws and regulations, case studies, namely Constitutional Court decisions, and conceptual approaches. Additionally, the author also conducted library research using data and books related to the research topic. The data obtained were analyzed qualitatively and then presented descriptively. The research results indicate that: 1) Constitutional Court Decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015 explicitly expands the obligation of investigators to submit the SPDP not only to the public prosecutor but also to the reported party and the complainant/victim within a maximum period of 7 (seven) days from the issuance of the investigation order. This reflects the principle of due process of law and guarantees constitutional rights as enshrined in Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution. Although this provision is self-executing in nature and has been adopted in Regulation of the Chief of the Indonesian National Police No. 6 of 2019, significant disparities still exist in its implementation; and 2) The absence of clear legal consequences for violations renders this norm ineffective, as stated by Hans Kelsen. The SPDP plays a crucial role in ensuring human rights and legal protection for all parties involved in the criminal justice process
Constitutional Court's Limitation on the Resubmission Ofindictments Syahird, Ahmad; Masturi, Rahmad; Kamran, Muhammad
LEGAL BRIEF Vol. 13 No. 5 (2024): December: Law Science and Field
Publisher : IHSA Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35335/legal.v13i5.1132

Abstract

This study aims to determine the legal consequences of limiting the resubmission of indictments by the constitutional court and the legal certainty of limiting the resubmission of indictments by the constitutional court. This type of research is normative with data collection techniques carried out through library research, namely laws and regulations, a case approach, namely the Constitutional Court Decision, and a conceptual approach. In addition, the author also conducts library research through data and books related to the research topic. Furthermore, the data obtained was analyzed qualitatively which was then presented descriptively. The results of the study show that: 1) The legal consequences of limiting the re-submission of indictments that have been canceled make the decision in the form of a final decision because it has been examined and considered the subject matter of the case and will be nebis in idem if filed again afterwards. The form of legal action that can be taken by the public prosecutor is an appeal or cassation and not resistance (verzet). In order to harmonize this form of legal action with the Constitutional Court's decision, additional arrangements are needed which contain new norms in criminal procedural law; and 2) The Constitutional Court's decision which limits the re-submission of indictments is a form of legal certainty. Thus, in order to prevent repeated cancellation of the indictment, the prosecutor's accuracy is required in preparing the indictment because at the second examination, there is a potential for the indictment to still not meet the material requirements so that the case is considered finished without any examination of the main case, and there is a potential for an indictment still does not meet the material requirements, while the subject matter of the case is proven. This resulted in no settlement and clarity of the status of the case for the accused and victims to obtain a guarantee of fair legal certainty as mandated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution