Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Arena Hukum Delicti : Jurnal Hukum Pidana Dan Kriminologi
Setiawan, Junet Hariyo
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Rekonstruksi Peran Judex facti dalam Perkara Narkotika: (Analisis Putusan Banding Nomor 130/PID.SUS/2023/PT DKI) Setiawan, Junet Hariyo
Delicti : Jurnal Hukum Pidana Dan Kriminologi Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Andalas

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25077/delicti.v.3.i.1.p.54-67.2025

Abstract

This study examines the function of judex facti exercised by the High Court in narcotics criminal cases, with a particular focus on the appellate decision Number 130/PID.SUS/2023/PT DKI involving a high-ranking law enforcement officer. Within the Indonesian legal system, the High Court is mandated to perform a substantive corrective role by re-evaluating facts and evidentiary materials, including digital evidence, to ensure both procedural and substantive justice. Employing a normative juridical approach, this research analyzes statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant judicial decisions. The findings reveal that the High Court failed to exercise its corrective function effectively: no forensic verification was conducted on digital evidence, the defendant's confession was accepted without independent corroboration, and the standards for digital evidence as stipulated in Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2020 were disregarded. As a result, the appellate ruling merely confirmed the first-instance judgment without substantive reconsideration. This study recommends an amendment to the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) to explicitly regulate digital evidence, alongside the development of technical guidelines and capacity building for judges in assessing electronic evidence. Such reforms are essential to reinforce judicial accountability and safeguard impartial justice in narcotics cases involving institutional actors.
Popular Sovereignty in Constitutional Transition: Challenging the Validity of the Post-Reform Constitution Setiawan, Junet Hariyo
Arena Hukum Vol. 19 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Brawijaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum2026.01901.3

Abstract

This study examines the validity of the post-Reform amendments to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia from the perspective of Constitutional Law Theory. The urgency lies in a fundamental legitimacy paradox: although the amendments procedurally complied with Article 37, the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) derived its authority to amend the Constitution from the constitution it amended, thereby challenging the core principle of people’s sovereignty. The legal issues investigated are (1) who possesses the legal standing to challenge the validity of these amendments? (2) Which institution holds the authority to review such challenges? Prior studies by Indrayana (2007) focused on the political history of amendments, Maboudi (2020) emphasised general public participation in constitution-making, and Nugraha (2023) analysed the concept of abusive amendments. The objective is to critically evaluate the amendments’ validity with respect to procedural legitimacy, public participation, and consistency with Pancasila values. The research employs a normative juridical method, combining the concept of staatsfundamentalnorm with constitutional legitimacy theory and principles of people’s sovereignty. A critical legitimacy deficit exists: the amendment process lacked inclusive public participation and suffered from a circular legitimacy problem in which the MPR, a constitutional creation, altered its own source of authority. The amendments are procedurally legal but substantively questionable from the standpoint of people’s sovereignty. This study contributes to Constitutional Theory by highlighting the distinction between legality and legitimacy in amendment processes. It offers a comparative framework for other democracies, examining the integrity of their foundational changes, and underscores the need to institutionalise protection for constitutional identity.
Co-Authors