Yunita, Nila (2025) RATIO DECIDENDI TERHADAP PENETAPAN TERSANGKA PUTUSAN PRAPERADILAN PENGADILAN NEGERI SERANG (STUDI PUTUSAN PRAPERADILAN NO 11/PID.PRA/2023/PN.SRG). Master thesis, UNIVERSITAS SULTAN AGENG TIRTAYASA.
![[img]](https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
NILA YUNITA_7773230033_FULL TEXT.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB) |
|
Text
NILA YUNITA_7773230033_01.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB) |
|
Text
NILA YUNITA_7773230033_02.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (665kB) |
|
Text
NILA YUNITA_7773230033_03.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (575kB) |
|
Text
NILA YUNITA_7773230033_04.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (708kB) |
|
Text
NILA YUNITA_7773230033_05.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (396kB) |
|
Text
NILA YUNITA_7773230033_REFF.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (523kB) |
Abstract
The determination of a suspect is a crucial step in the investigation of a criminal offense. However, in practice, legal debates often arise regarding the legitimacy of suspect designation, particularly when challenged through the pretrial mechanism. This research employs a normative juridical method, or doctrinal legal research, which relies on secondary data sources using the statute approach and case approach. The research findings indicate that a lawful determination of a suspect must be based on at least two preliminary pieces of evidence and must follow procedures regulated in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. In case Number 11/PID.PRA/2023/PN.SRG, the Pretrial Judge at the Serang District Court went beyond procedural review and entered into the substance of the case. According to prevailing legal norms, judges in pretrial hearings should only examine formal legality or procedural validity, not determine the guilt or innocence of the suspect. This is in contrast to other pretrial decisions, such as Number 1/PID.PRA/2024/PN.PDL and Number 20/PID.PRA/2023/PN.TNG, where the petitions were denied on the basis that the arrest procedures were valid and supported by sufficient preliminary evidence. This inconsistency in pretrial rulings reflects differing interpretations of what constitutes "sufficient preliminary evidence," resulting in legal uncertainty. Therefore, there is a need for a clearer and more uniform legal construction in pretrial proceedings to ensure this mechanism effectively protects citizens’ rights and upholds the principle of legal certainty
| Item Type: | Thesis (Master) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributors: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | Penetapan tersangka merupakan salah satu tindakan penting dalam proses penyidikan tindak pidana. Namun, dalam praktiknya, kerap timbul perdebatan hukum dan Ratio Decidendi oleh hakim mengenai sah atau tidaknya penetapan seseorang sebagai tersangka, ketika diuji melalui mekanisme praperadilan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif atau penelitian hukum doctrinal, yaitu suatu penelitian hukum yang mempergunakan sumber data sekunder. menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statue approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Hasil Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penetapan tersangka yang sah harus didasarkan pada minimal dua alat bukti permulaan yang cukup dan dilakukan sesuai dengan prosedur yang diatur dalam KUHAP serta yurisprudensi Mahkamah Konstitusi. Hakim Praperadilan Pengadilan Negeri Serang dalam perkara putusan Nomor 11/PID.PRA/2023/PN.SRG dalam pertimbangan hukumnya telah memasuki subtansi pokok, seharusnya hakim sesuai ketentuan yang berlaku hanya menguji prosedur atau keabsahan formal, bukan membuktikan apakah tersangka bersalah atau tidak. Seperti dua putusan praperadilan Nomor. 1/PID.PRA/2024/PN.PDL dan Nomor. 20/PID.PRA/2023/PN.TNG yang menolak pemohon dengan dasar prosedur penangkapan telah sesuai dengan adanya dua alat bukti yang cukup. Hal ini terdapat ketidakkonsistenan dalam putusan praperadilan terkait interpretasi “dua alat bukti permulaan yang cukup”, sehingga menciptakan ketidakpastian hukum. Maka perlu adanya konstruksi hukum yang lebih tegas dan seragam dalam praperadilan, diharapkan mekanisme ini benar-benar menjadi instrumen perlindungan hak warga negara serta menjamin prinsip kepastian hukum. | |||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Praperadilan, Ratio Decidendi, Legal uncertainty Praperadilan, Ratio Decidendi, Ketidapastian Hukum | |||||||||
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) | |||||||||
| Divisions: | 01-Fakultas Hukum 08-Pascasarjana > 74101-Magister Ilmu Hukum |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Mr Nila Yunita | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 02 Aug 2025 02:10 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 02 Aug 2025 02:10 | |||||||||
| URI: | http://eprints.untirta.ac.id/id/eprint/53450 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |