<![CDATA[This study analyzes the quality of criminal law reasoning and the ratio decidendi of judges in the rejection of a pretrial application in Decision Number 6/Pid.Pra/2025/PN Kpg. The main issue examined is whether the judge’s reasoning is consistent with the principles of legality, fault (mens rea), and criminal liability within Indonesian criminal law. This research employs a normative juridical method with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The primary legal material consists of court decisions and relevant legislation, while secondary materials include legal doctrines, books, and academic journals. The results indicate that the judge’s reasoning is procedurally consistent with criminal procedural law, particularly KUHAP, Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014, and Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2016. However, substantively, the reasoning remains formalistic as it does not critically assess the quality of evidence, the relevance of evidence to criminal elements, or the individual involvement of the suspects. Furthermore, the ratio decidendi focuses more on formal legality rather than material legality, and does not sufficiently consider the principles of fault and individual criminal responsibility. Consequently, the decision reflects a procedural correctness but lacks substantive justice in criminal law enforcement.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
