Abstract
This paper intends to examine and analyse the determination of suspects by the high prosecutor's office in the land acquisition corruption case in the Padang - Sicincin Toll Road construction project. Research using a normative juridical approach reveals that legal instruments fail to show justice, where the determination of the suspect in this case is detrimental to the people. Therefore, according to the author, it is necessary to re-analyze the procedure for naming suspects by law enforcement officials so that legal certainty can be found and the decision to designate suspects does not harm the people. The results of this study showed that there are no definite legal provisions on how the prosecutor's office can determine a suspect. Choosing the suspect so far is still in a grey area because there are no explicit provisions regarding "preliminary evidence" to determine the suspect. On the other hand, the panel of judges, in their considerations, decided that the subsidiary charges were not proven and had not been legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a criminal act. On the other hand, the panel of judges, in their considerations, decided that the subsidiary charges were not proven and had not been legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a criminal act.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
