Perluasan Kewenangan Praperadilan Terkait Hak-hak Tersangka dalam Konteks Pembaharuan Hukum Acara Pidana

Abstract

Wewenang praperadilan sebatas pemeriksaan syarat formal administratif dan tidak dapat digunakan untuk menguji asas yuridis upaya paksa (sah atau tidaknya) dalam arti materiil seperti cara-cara penyidik memperoleh bukti permulaan yang cukup atau minimal dua alat bukti untuk menetapkan status tersangka. Disertasi ini berjudul ”Perluasan Kewenangan Praperadilan Terkait Hak-Hak Tersangka Dalam Konteks Kebijakan Pembaharuan Hukum Acara Pidana”. Permasalahan yang dibahas mengenai aturan hukum acara pidana yang mengatur ruang lingkupruang lingkup praperadilan dalam KUHAP, penegakan hukum KUHAP terkait hak-hak tersangka untuk memperoleh keadilan, dan perluasan kewenangan praperadilan dalam konteks kebijakan pembaharuan hukum acara pidana di masa yang akan datang. Spesifikasi penelitian ini normatif, deskriptif, menggunakan data sekunder dengan statuta approach, case approach, comparative approach, danempirical approach. Data dikumpulkan melalui library research, danfield research. Data dianalisis secara kualitatif, bukan kuantitatif. Ruang lingkup praperadilan dalam KUHAP terlalu sempit, namundiperluasdi Pasal 111 ayat (1) RKUHAP dalam konsep hakim komisaris, bertindak aktif dan passif dalam mengawasi, memeriksa, menetapkan, dan memutuskan, sesuaikewenangan dalam Pasal 111 ayat (1) RKUHAP tersebut termasuk semua pelanggaran terhadap hak-hak tersangka apapun yang lain yang terjadi selama tahap penyidikan dan penuntutan. Penegakan hukum terkait hak-hak tersangka untuk memperoleh keadilan melalui praperadilan belum dapat mengakomodir hak-hak calon tersangka, tersangka maupun terdakwa yang semestinya dijamin dan dilindungi oleh undang-undang, karena hakim tunggal sangat bergantung pemeriksaan syarat formal administratif. Perluasan kewenangan ruang lingkup praperadilan harus ditata kembali dalam RKUHAP, diperluas berdasarkan prinsip kepastian hukum dan rasa keadilan serta diformulasikan kembali di dalam RKUHAP. Kewenangan praperadilan diperluas dalam koridor asas legalitas,diskresi penyidik yang luas (tindakan lain) dibatasi, dan hakim aktif dalam proses pemeriksaan pendahuluan (upaya paksa), serta apapun yang lain yang terjadi selama tahap penyidikan dan penuntutan.

The Authority of pretrial runs on the trial as an administrative formal requirement and can not be used to examine the juridiction principle of force efforts (legal or illigal) in the materil meaning as the investigators acts to get the enough preliminary evidences or at least two evidences to determine the status of suspected. This disertation with tittle “The Expansion of Pretrial Authority concerning with the rights of suspected in the context of the Reformation Policy of Law of Criminal Procedures.” The matters that are discussed about the scope of pretrial in Law of criminal procedures (KUHAP), the law enforcement of criminal procedures related to the rights of the suspected and ligitigates to get the justice and authority expansion of pretrial in the context of the reformation policy of law criminal procedures in the future. Spesification of this research is normative, descriptive, by using the secondary datas with statuta approach, case approach, comparative approach, and empirical approach. Datas are collected through library research and field research. Research locations are in District Court and General Distric Attorney in the legal areas of North Sumatera Policy. Datas are analysed qualitatively not quantitatively. The scope of pretrial in KUHAP is too limited, but it is broadened on Article 111 verse (1) of Designing of Criminal Code in the concept of commissioner judges, that act actively and passivly in supervising, examining, dermining and deciding as to the authority on Article 111 verse (1) of Designing of Criminal Code, included all the transgressions against the rights of suspected and everything happened during the investigations and prsecutions. The legal enforcement related to the rights of suspected to get the justice through the pretrial can not be accommodated yet the rights of candidates of suspected should be guaranted and protected by the Acts, because the singular judge depends on the trials so much as a formal administration. The authority reformulation of the scope of pretrials should be arranged again in the designing of Criminal Code, extended based on the principle of legal certainty and the sense of justice and reformulated again in designing of criminal code. The authority of pretrials is extended on the corridor of legality principles, the widest discretion of investigators (other actions) which are limited, and the judges actively at a preliminary stage of investigation (force efforts), and everything during the stage of investigation and prosecution.