Limitative Changes in Indictment Letter After Constitutional Court Decision Number 28/PUU-XX/2022 as a From of Legal Certainty Guarantee

Mutia Dwi Rahayu; Devi Siti Hamzah Marpaung

doi:10.30736/ji.v11i1.172

Authors

Mutia Dwi Rahayu Faculty of Law, Singaperbangsa Karawang University
Devi Siti Hamzah Marpaung Faculty of Law, Singaperbangsa Karawang University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30736/ji.v11i1.172

Keywords:

Letter of Indictment, Constitutional Court Rulings, Prosecutors, Legal Certainty

Abstract

In the preparation of the indictment, accuracy and are needed. This is because the indictment is used as the basis for the judge in determining the limits of the examination at trial. Indictments that are not qualified for formal and material will have the status of being voidable and charges that are null and void. This study aims to describe and clearly know what makes the reasons for the cancellation of the indictment letter and the legal certainty of the indictment letter after the Constitutional Court ruling. Normative juridical methods and library research techniques with the introduction of laws and regulations and conceptuals are the choices of researchers in this study. The results showed that non-fulfillment of the formal conditions, namely the conditions relating to the identity of the defendant, resulted in the charges being dropped being dropped. Meanwhile, the material requirements are related to a careful, clear, and complete description of the criminal act charged, which in fulfillment of the material conditions is not met, the charges filed can be null and void. Article 144 of the Criminal Code provides for the provision of changing the letter of indictment once without any limitative arrangement for changing the substance of the indictment. After the 2022 Constitutional Court Decision, the Public Prosecutor has limitations in changing the substance of the indictment as a form of certainty and legal justice as Amar Decision Number 28 / PUU-XX / 2022.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alam, N. A. P., Husen, L. O., & Ahmad, K. Efektivitas Penyusunan Surat Dakwaan Oleh Penuntut Umum. (2016) 6 Journal of Lex Generalis (JLS),.

Andi, H. Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. (CV Sapta Artha Jaya 1996).

Hutasoit, I. Peranana Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam Proses Penyusunan Surat Dakwaan. (2019) 1 PETITA.

Ibrahim, J. Teori & Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif,. (Bayumedia Publishing 20120.

Johansyah. Kedudukan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Lembaga Negara Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. (2019) 17 SOLUSI: Jurnal Unpal.

M Iqbal. Implementasi Efektifitas Asas Oportunitas di Indonesia Dengan Landasan Kepentingan Umum. (2018) 9 Jurnal Surya Kencana Satu: Dinamika Masalah Hukum Dan Keadilan.

Mulyadi, L. Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. (Citra Aditya Bakti 2012).

Pangkapi, E. Hukuman Mati untuk Iman Imran Catatan Sebuah Proses Peradilan. (Alumni 1982).

Poerwadarminta, W. J. Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia. (PN Balai Pustaka 1966).

Ramdan, A. (2017). Kewenangan Penuntut Umum Mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 33/PUU-XIV/2016. (2017) 11 Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum.

Sanyoto. Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia. (2018) 8 Jurnal Dinamika Hukum.

Sitinjak, I. Y. Peran Kejaksaan dan Peran Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam Penegakan Hukum. (2018) 3 Jurnal Ilmiah Maksitek.

Soerjono Soekanto, & Mamudji, S. Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. (Rajawali Press 2019).

Soetomo, A. Pedoman Dasar Pembuatan Surat Dakwaan dan Suplemen. (Pradnya Paramita 1989).

Sunggono, B. Metodologi Penelitian Hukum. (Rajawali Pers 2005).

Terok, M. T., Wongkar, V. A., & Bawole, H. Y. Syarat Materiil Surat Dakwaan Menurut Pandangan doktrin Serta Praktik Peradilan Pidana. (2021) X Lex Crimen.

Tinambunan, W. D., & Siwi, G. R. Dinamika Kedudukan Hukum Jaksa sebagai Pengacara Negara Pasca Undang-Undang Kejaksaan. (2022) 6 AJUDIKASI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum.