ANALISIS PUTUSAN PRAPERADILAN NOMOR: 24/Pid.Prap/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel  PENETAPAN TERSANGKA BARU KASUS BANK CENTURY

herlambang ponco prasetyo

doi:10.2674/novum.v7i4.32800

herlambang ponco prasetyo Universitas Negeri Surabaya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2674/novum.v7i4.32800

Abstract

The South Jakarta District Court dated April 9, 2019 decided on a pretrial case filed by the Anti-Corruption Society Association (MAKI). The pretrial verdict numbered: 24/Pid.Prap/2018/PN.Jkt. The following makes the norm by which the pretrial judge can accept the respondent (Investigator) to determine a suspect for someone who is not involved in the case. The KPK as the respondent was requested by MAKI to be made Budiono, et al as soon as possible to be made a suspect in the Century Bank case. MAKI postulated that because the KPK had indirectly stopped the investigation because within 2 years after Budi Mulya's decision had increased at the cassation level, the KPK did not match the suspect Budiono, et al. Which in the argument of the judge in Budi Mulya's appeal, together with Budiono, et al Involved in the Century Bank case.

The purpose of this study is to study the basis of the MAKI and the Judge requesting immediate gathering of Boediono, et al. This research is a normative juridical research study using research proposals, invitations and conceptual. The legal material of this research consists of primary legal material, secondary legal material.

The results showed that MAKI argued that the KPK had taken an action to stop the investigation. This is based on that the Criminal Procedure Code is not regulated related to the process of terminating the investigation which must be issued through SP3. Unlike considering the cessation of the prosecution in the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution is carried out through the determination of the court. Moreover, the KPK cannot issue SP3 because it has been approved by article 40 of Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission. The basis of judges in making legal breakthroughs is because corruption is an extraordinary crime that must be resolved immediately.

Keyword : Pretrial, Decision Number: 24/Pid.Prap/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel, SP3

Author Biography

herlambang ponco prasetyo, Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Law Departemen

References

Ali, Achmad. 1996. Menguak Tabir Hukum. Jakarta: Chandra Pratama.
Effendi, Tolib. 2016. Praktik Peradilan Pidana: Kemahiran Beracara Pidana pada Pengadilan Tingkat Pertama. Malang: Setara Press.
Husin, Kadri dan Rizki Husin. 2012. Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia. Bandar Lampung: Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Lampung.
Kadir, Muhammad Abdul. 1985. Hukum Acara Perdata. Bandung: Alumni.
Kaligis, O.C..1997. Rusdi Nurima, Denny Kailimang, Praperadilan dalam Kenyataan: Studi Kasus dan Komentar. Jakarta : Djambatan.
Keputusan Jaksa Agung No. 518/A/J.A/11/2001 tanggal 1 Nopember 2001 tentang Perubahan Keputusan Jaksa Agung Republik Indonesia No. 132/JA/11/1994 tentang Administrasi Perkara Tindak Pidana.
Mertokusomo, Sudikno. 1985. Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2014, Penelitian Hukum, Kencana Jakarta.
Putusan Praperadilan Nomor : 01/PRA/2014/PN.Byl
Putusan Praperadilan Nomor: 24/Pid.Prap/ 2018/PN.Jkt.Sel
Rachmadsyah, Shanti, SP3, diakses di https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/ detail/ulasan/cl624/sp3/, pada tanggal 01 Februari 2020
Subekti, R.. 1995. Dasar-Dasar Hukum dan Keadilan. Soeroengan: Jakarta.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Lembaran Negara Nomor 76 Tahun 1982. Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 3209.
Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2002 Nomor 137. Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 4250.