Kajian Terhadap Putusan Batal Demi Hukum Tanpa Perintah Penahanan (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 69/PUU-X/2012)

Authors

  • Eddy Rifai Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro 1 Bandar Lampung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1013

Keywords:

Decisions, null and void, the restraining order

Abstract


Thispaperexaminesthe decisionaboutthe null andvoidwithout anarrestwarrant (the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 69/PUU-X/2012). From the results of the discussion suggests that the Criminal Code does not provide an explanation of the term “null and void”. The term “null and void” in the sense of directing an action does not match the Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal Procedure Code provides limitatif limits on detention, both for conditions of detention, agency/law enforcement detain and duration of detention, where errors in detention may be submitted claim for compensation. Constitutional Court Decision No. 69/PUU-X/2012 dated 22 November 2012 stating that the court decision does not comply with Article 197 paragraph (1) Criminal Code specifically on the restraining order was not void is not appropriate, because the terms of the restraining order is necessary for the detention status of the accused, whether fixed detained or released or against the accused who were not arrested were ordered to be detained. Court decisions that do not comply with Article 197 paragraph (1) Criminal Code specifically about a restraining order is null and void. Against the decision of the void can be corrected by the court restraining order stating thereon.

References

Andi Hamzah, 2002. Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
M. Yahya Harahap. 1995. Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP Jilid I. Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
_______. Keterangan Ahli dalam perkara Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 69/PUU-X/2012 diakses dari http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/
Muzakir, Keterangan Ahli dalam perkara Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 69/PUU-X/2012 diakses dari http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/
Yurisprudensi MA R.I., 2009. Pidana Umum Jilid IV. PT Pilar Yuris Ultima, Jakarta. http://www.poskota.news.com/
http://www.mk.go.id/
Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung (SEMA) R.I. No. 16 Tahun 1983.
Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.

Downloads

Published

2016-05-20

How to Cite

Rifai, Eddy. 2016. “Kajian Terhadap Putusan Batal Demi Hukum Tanpa Perintah Penahanan (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 69 PUU-X 2012)”. Jurnal Konstitusi 10 (1):49-68. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1013.

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2013)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Copyright of the published articles will be transferred to the journal as the publisher of the manuscripts. Therefore, the author confirms that the copyright has been managed by the publisher.
  2. The publisher of Jurnal Konstitusi is The Registrar and Secretariat General of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
  3. The copyright follows Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License: This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms.