Reactualisation of the Pretrial Role in Guaranteeing a Fair Trial in Indonesia: Lessons from the Pegi Setiawan Case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24843/KP.2025.v47.i03.p01Kata Kunci:
Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Court, Indonesia, Pre-trial, SuspectsAbstrak
Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 has become an important milestone in expanding the scope of pretrial proceedings in Indonesia. The ruling confirms that the designation of suspects, searches, and seizures can be challenged through pretrial mechanisms, even though this norm was not explicitly stated in Article 77(a) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP). Interestingly, in judicial practice, Decision Number 10/Pid.Pra/2024/PN Bdg in the case of Pegi Setiawan actually used the Constitutional Court's legal considerations, not just the verdict, as the basis for the sole judge's argument. This reveals a shift in methodology in the use of Constitutional Court decisions by first instance judges. This article examines the position of legal considerations in Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, including dissenting opinions and concurring opinions, as well as their implications for pretrial practice. This research is a type of normative juridical research with a legal material collection technique using a document study or literature research method. This analysis is also directed at the need to reformulate pretrial norms in Indonesian criminal procedure law in the future so that they are in line with the principles of legal certainty, protection of human rights, and the principle of due process of law.
Unduhan
Referensi
Book
Cross, Sir Rupert, and J.W. Harris. Precedent in English Law. Clarendow Law Series. Clarendon Press, 1991.
Effendi, Erdianto. Hukum Acara Pidana (Perspektif KUHAP Dan Peraturan Lainnya). Refika, 2021.
Hajar, M. Model-Model Pendekatan Dalam Penelitian Hukum Dan Fiqh. Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasyim Riau, 2015.
Zander, Michael. The Law-Making Process. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Journal
Badeng, Ayu Anjeli Sandra, Yakoba Yosar E Buto, Dioninsus Sunlety, and Stevanus Joefando M. Kayep. ‘Eksistensi Praperadilan Dalam Kasus Upaya Paksa Yang Tidak Sesuai Prosedur Hukum Oleh Pihak Penyidik Terhadap Pegi Setiawan Sebagai Korban Salah Tangkap’. Animha Law Journal 1, no. 1 (2024): 40–47.
Effendi, Erdianto. ‘Relevansi Pemeriksaan Calon Tersangka Sebelum Penetapan Tersangka’. Undang: Jurnal Hukum 3, no. 2 (2020): 267–88. https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.3.2.267-288.
Fadlilah, M Nabiel, Siti Sa’adah Fauziah, and Andian Achya D.K. ‘Tinjauan Yuridis Mengenai Pertentangan Hukum Yang Hidup Dalam Masyarakat Dalam Pasal 2 Pada Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Dengan Asas Legalitas’. AL-MANHAJ: Jurnal Hukum Dan Pranata Sosial Islam 4, no. 2 (2022): 505–14. https://doi.org/10.37680/almanhaj.v4i2.1790.
Firmansyah, Shandy Herlian, and Achmad Miftah Farid. ‘Politik Hukum Praperadilan Sebagai Lembaga Perlindungan Hak Tersangka Ditinjau Dari Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 Mengenai Penetapan Tersangka’. Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Dan Keadilan 3, no. 2 (2022): 90–103. https://doi.org/10.18196/jphk.v3i2.15195.
Gunawan A. Tauda. ‘Kekuatan Mengikat Pertimbangan Hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konsitusi Dalam Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang (Studi Putusan Nomor 20/PUU-XIX/2021)’. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM 31, no. 2 (2024): 358–83. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol31.iss2.art6.
Lubis, Andi Hakim, and Rismanto J Purba. ‘Interpretasi Hukum Terhadap Frasa Pemeriksaan Calon Tersangka Pada Ratio Decidendi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 Dalam Dinamika Praperadilan Di Indonesia’. Judge: Jurnal Hukum 06, no. 02 (2025). https://doi.org/doi.org/10.54209/judge.v6i02.1374.
Marbun, Rocky. ‘Trikotomi Relasi Dalam Penetapan Tersangka: Menguji Frasa “Pemeriksaan Calon Tersangka” Melalui Praperadilan’. Undang: Jurnal Hukum 4, no. 1 (2021): 159–90. https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.4.1.159-190.
Putri, Intan Permata, and Mohammad Mahrus Ali. ‘Karakteristik Judicial Order Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dengan Amar Tidak Dapat Diterima’. Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 4 (2020): 883. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk16410.
Rusman Sumadi. ‘Praperadilan Sebagai Sarana Kontrol Dalam Melindungi Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) Tersangka’. Jurnal Hukum Sasana 7, no. 1 (2021): 149–62. https://doi.org/10.31599/sasana.v7i1.597.
Sa’adah, Nabitatus. ‘Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Pengawal Demokrasi Dan Konstitusi Khususnya Dalam Menjalankan Constitutional Review’. Administrative Law and Governance Journal 2, no. 2 (2019): 235–47. https://doi.org/10.14710/alj.v2i2.235-247.
Safaat, Muchamad Ali, Aan Eko Widiarto, and Fajar Laksono Suroso. ‘Pola Penafsiran Konstitusi Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Periode 2003 - 2008 Dan 2009 - 2013’. Jurnal Konstitusi 14, no. 2 (2017): 234. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1421.
Tapahing, Berly Geral. ‘Akibat Hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Pengujian Undang-Undang Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Dalam Sistem Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan’. Lex Administratum 6, no. 1 (2018).
Laws and Regulations
Law Number 8 Year 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code
Law Number 12 Year 2011 on the Formation of Legislation
Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014
District Court Decision No. 10/Pid.Pra/2024/PN Bdg
Internet Sources
Institute for Criminal Justice Reform. ‘Meaningful Manipulation RUU KUHAP: Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Harapan Palsu’. Diakses 31 Agustus 2025. www.icjr.or.id, 9 July 2025. https://icjr.or.id/meaningful-manipulation-ruu-kuhap-rancangan-kitab-undang-undang-har/.
Thea DA, Ady. ‘Klarifikasi Wamenkum Prof Eddy Soal RUU KUHAP Dikebut 2 Hari Dan Partisipasi Publik’. Hukumonline.Com, 28 July 2025. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/klarifikasi-wamenkum-prof-eddy-soal-ruu-kuhap-dikebut-2-hari-dan-partisipasi-publik-lt6886fd31c9fd4/.
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2025 Kertha Patrika
Artikel ini berlisensi Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Peer Reviewers
