Disparitas Putusan Pra-Peradilan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia (Studi Kasus : Putusan Prapid P.N. Tarutung No. 6/Pid.Pra/2020/Pn.Trt., Tgl. 31/08/2020 dan Putusan Prapid P.N. Medan No. 5/Pid.Pra/2021/Pn.Mdn., Tgl. 16/02/2021)

Abstract

ABSTRACT In the enforcement of criminal law, it is inseparable from the criminal procedure law itself as a positive law that is binding to be implemented. Determination of a suspect by law must be based on at least two sufficient pieces of evidence. The legal basis for the pre-trial object is Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code, regarding the validity or not, arrest, detention, termination of investigation/prosecution, compensation and/or rehabilitation. Based on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 21/PUU-XII/2014, date. 28/04/2015, it turns out that the pre-trial competence in the District Court was expanded by adding a pretrial object, namely the "legitimacy of the determination of the suspect". In making a decision, the judge is given the freedom to make a decision even though the decision can differ from one case to another, this difference is called "disparity". An example of a case regarding testing the validity of the determination of the suspect in this study differs between the Pre-Trial Decisions at the Tarutung District Court No. 6/Pid.Pre/2020, date. 31/08/2020 with the Medan District Court No. 5/Pid.Pre/2021, date. 16/02/2021 An. Applicant "P.S.H". The difference in the decision is that at the Tarutung District Court, the pre-pid application to cancel the determination of the suspect was granted by the judge, while at the Medan District Court, the judge rejected. The pretrial submission by the Petitioner (Suspect) relates to the appointment of the Petitioner as a Suspect in his capacity as a Commitment Making Officer in the alleged "Corruption of Road Improvement Project Work at the PUPR/Praswil Office of Kab. Humbahas, source of DAK funds. TA. 2016, with a budget ceiling of Rp. 5.9 billion”. State financial loss, estimated at Rp. 1.1 billion. The problems in this study, namely: Arrangement of pretrial submissions against the determination of suspects in the District Court; The factors that influence the disparity of pretrial decisions on the determination of different corruption suspects in the Tarutung District Court Pretrial Decision No. 6/Pid.Pre/2020 with the Medan District Court Pretrial Decision No. 5/Pid.Pre/2021; and analysis of legal considerations on the disparity of the pretrial decision. This research is normative legal research, which is descriptive analysis. Data in the form of pretrial decisions were obtained from the Registrar's Office of the Tarutung District Court and the Medan District Court using field research. In addition, library research is also carried out, with the data collection tool being a documentary study. Data analysis was carried out qualitatively. The results showed that: First, Tarutung District Court Judges, and Medan District Court Judges were correct and correct in hearing the pretrial application case against the validity of the determination of the suspect. Second, the pretrial legal efforts taken by the suspect while still being investigated and investigated, then the investigation and investigation of criminal acts of corruption carried out by the Humbang Hasundutan District Attorney's Office was actually less than perfect. This is because the determination of the suspect, according to the pretrial judge at the Tarutung District Court, only uses an "service note" as a form of coordination within government agencies. Meanwhile, in the context of investigating criminal acts, in determining someone to be a suspect, a Suspect Determination Letter must be used which is signed by the Investigating Prosecutor. In this context, the Investigating Prosecutor at the North Sumatra High Prosecutor's Office has carried out and corrected the entire series of investigations and investigations, so the determination of the suspect he has determined is appropriate and declared valid by the pretrial judge at the Medan District Court. Third, in the context of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor's Office, Humbang Hasundutan, it was just an error in the administration of the investigation and investigation. The administrative error is by naming the suspect first, rather than finding sufficient evidence as mandated by law. The determination of the suspect should have been carried out based on Article 183 jo. Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code jo. Article 422 of the Republic of Indonesia Attorney General's Regulation No. PERJA-039/A/JA/10/2010 concerning Administrative and Technical Management of Special Crime Cases. Keywords: Pretrial; The validity of the determination of the suspect; District Court.