| dc.description.abstract | After the Constitutional Court's decision No. 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 dated October
28, 2014, the provisions of Article 77 letter a of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the
Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) based on the 1945 Constitution become thus: the
validity of arrest, detention, cessation of investigations or cessation of prosecution;
including the stipulation of suspects, search and seizure. Kabanjahe District Court
Decision No. 2 / PID.PRA / 2019 / PN-KBJ is one of the tests to determine a suspect on
behalf of Ir. Edy Perin Sebayang as deputy director of CV. Askonas Utama Utama for
alleged corruption in the Making of Signs / Pillars at the Karo District Sanitation and
Landscaping Office which had suffered a loss of Rp. 605,437,766.00 (six hundred five
million four hundred thirty seven thousand seven hundred sixty six Rupiah cents).
This research is normative juridical, that is research focused on examining the
application of the rules or norms in positive law. This type of research uses a statute
approach and a case approach. The legislative approach is used to find out the entire
legal regulations, especially criminal law in Indonesia.
The results of this study indicate that the Kabanjahe District Court Decision No.
2 / PID.PRA / 2019 / PN-KBJ basically has been wrong because it examined the material
aspects of the pretrial petition and did not examine 2 (two) sufficient evidence that had
been collected by the Respondent to establish the Petitioner as a suspect, thus the Judge's
Decision had violated the guidelines outlined by the Supreme Court, namely Article 2
paragraph (2) and (4) Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2016 concerning Prohibition
of Reconsideration of Judicial Decisions. This decision can not be submitted by any legal
remedy, including a reconsideration. However, the ruling did not cover the continuation
of the case. The pretrial ruling that granted the request regarding the illegitimate
determination of the suspect did not invalidate the authority of the Investigator to reestablish
the person concerned as a suspect with the provisions of fulfilling at least two
valid new evidences, different from previous evidence relating to the case material.
Pretrial Kabanjahe District Court Decision No. 2 / PID.PRA / 2019 / PN-KBJ
which granted the pretrial petitioner's request stating the Determination of Suspect Letter
issued by the Head of the Karo District Attorney No: Print-03 / N.2.17 / Fd.1 / 07/2018
dated 31 July 2018 following The Investigation Order issued by the Head of the Karo
District Attorney Office No: Print-05 / N.2.17 / Fd.1 / 07/2018 dated July 31, 2018 is
invalid and unlawfull, in essence based on the considerations of the Judge who stated the
compensation mechanism Regional finances are in accordance with applicable
regulations, therefore the procedure for investigating and determining applicant suspects
on the construction of a monument / boundary marking (making the monument to make)
is declared invalid and violates the law. However, if it is related to the formal aspects of
determining a suspect, the Karo District Attorney investigator already has at least 2
(two) pieces of evidence in accordance with the provisions of Article 184 of the Criminal
Procedure Code | en_US |
