<![CDATA[This study aims to examine and analyze the pretrial examination mechanism, which also assesses the substance of the case, as reflected in Pretrial Decision Number 10/Pid.Pra/2020/PN.Lbo at the Limboto District Court. The method used in this study is normative legal research, applying a statute approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach. The analysis is conducted qualitatively through deductive reasoning, namely by explaining general legal provisions and then drawing more specific conclusions.The results indicate that Pretrial Decision Number 10/Pid.Pra/2020/PN.Lbo, specifically the ruling declaring the Petitioner's actions not a criminal act of corruption, is deemed inconsistent with the nature and scope of pretrial proceedings. This is because pretrial examinations are principally intended only to examine formal aspects with a brief examination process, and therefore should not include an assessment of the subject matter of the case. Furthermore, the lack of a legal remedy mechanism for the pretrial decision also raises issues of legal certainty. In fact, based on the principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur, every court decision must be considered correct, valid, and binding until there is a decision from a higher court that overturns the decision.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
