ANALISIS HUKUM TERHADAP SAH TIDAKNYA SEBUAH PENANGKAPAN, PENAHANAN DAN PENETAPAN TERSANGKA BERDASARKAN PUTUSAN PRAPERADILAN NO. 01 .Pid/ Pra/ 2022.PN Blg

Abstract

The existence and presence of pretrial is not a separate judicial institution but only the granting of new powers and functions delegated to the District Court. Article 1 point 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code emphasizes that the court must examine and decide whether the arrest/detention is legal, whether the termination of the investigation/termination of prosecution is legal, requests for compensation/rehabilitation by the suspect or his family or his attorney whose case has not been submitted to the District Court. For the smooth running of pretrial duties and responsibilities, the Head of the District Court may have alternatives by taking into account workload factors and technical personnel for the sake of upholding the law and protecting Human Rights (HAM). Procedures for the pretrial hearing examination process are regulated in Chapter X Part I Article 79 to Article 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Pretrial examinations can fail, meaning that they are stopped before a decision is passed/terminated without a decision, namely by canceling the request and at the same time all matters relating to the case are withdrawn into the authority of the District Court to evaluate and decide it. This research is to find out benchmarks regarding the legality of the arrest, detention and determination of suspects and to find out the objectivity of the panel of judges of the District Court in examining and deciding on pretrial requests, the method in this study is Normative Juridical and Analytical Descriptive, research results of Detention Actions can only be carried out if the conditions the material and formal conditions for arrest are fulfilled, meaning that if an arrest is declared legally disabled, then the act of detention is automatically disabled, law enforcement is carried out in ways that violate the law, then the action is illegal and disgraceful, In Decision No: 1/Pid . Pre/ 2022/ PN Blg there was not the slightest bit of objectivity in the panel of judges in viewing cases with a balanced understanding of the law.