| dc.description.abstract | The results of the study, the authority of judges in deciding cases related to the
ultra petita principle in criminal procedural law is limited. That is, the permissibility
of ultra petita that is justified must be in accordance with the provisions of Article 182
paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code where the ultra petita is still within the
scope of the indictment and everything that is proven in the examination at trial.
Judges' considerations in passing decisions containing ultra petita in Supreme Court
Decision No. 2593K/Pid.Sus/2021 against the Mandailing Natal District Court
Decision No. 111/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Mdl jo Medan High Court Decision No.
1724/Pid.Sus/2020/PT.Mdn where the judex factie and judex juris agreed on the crime
that the defendant violated only regarding the length of sentence the judex juris
disagreed with. This is due to the lack of judex factie in considering the facts of the
trial as well as considering evidence which, if assessed according to substance justice,
is not commensurate or balanced with the risk of work received by the defendant so
that judex juris deviates from the specific minimum sentence charged to the defendant.
Criminal imposition by judges in the future so that ultra petita does not occur where in the indictment the public prosecutor must contain the values of substantive justice,
namely the contents of substantive justice are contained in the indictment of the Public
Prosecutor, the indictment contains the values of substantive justice containing an
honest description, The indictment is drawn up with impartiality and the indictment
must contain a rational description and if the case files originating from the police are
not considered sufficient to contain the values of substantive justice so that they are
included in the indictment, the public prosecutor carries out the pre-prosecution to the
fullest. | en_US |
