PENGAJUAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI OLEH JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM BERDASARKAN PASAL  30C UU NO. 11 TAHUN 2021 TENTANG PERUBAHAN UU NO. 16 TAHUN 2004 TENTANG KEJAKSAAN DIKAITKAN DENGAN PUTUSAN MK NO. 33/PUU-XIV/2016 DALAM PERSPEKTIF  KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN

Arman Tjoneng; Dian Narwastuty

doi:10.28932/di.v14i2.6377

Authors

Arman Tjoneng Universitas Kristen Maranatha
Dian Narwastuty Universitas Kristen Maranatha

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.28932/di.v14i2.6377

Keywords:

Authority, Judicial Review, Justice, Legal Certainty

Abstract

With the ratification of the prosecutor's law in 2021, it finally caused a polemic regarding the authority of the public prosecutor in filing a judicial review. The counter-opinion argues that the framers of the law did not understand the norms in the existing legislation. On the other hand, MK Decision No.33/PUU-XIV / 2016 which states that the review by the Public Prosecutor contrary to the code of Criminal Procedure is final and binding for anyone. Therefore, the prosecutor's authority in applying for judicial review is considered unlawful. But on the other side, the Internal Affairs of the prosecutor's actually took another view and strongly supported the authority for filing a judicial review by the prosecutor's under the new law. Based on this study, which uses normative juridical methods and legislative approaches and conceptual approaches, then with the ratification of the prosecutor's law in 2021, it is considered to provide more legal certainty for the authority of the public prosecutor in filing a judicial review and providing space for “justice” for victims and as an effort to correct and improve in realizing justice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Books

Atmasasmita, Romli. Sistem Peradilan Pidana: Perspektif Eksistensialisme dan Abolisioisme, Cet. Kedua. Jakarta, Putra A. Bardin, 1996.

Barnett, Randy E. and John Hegel III, edts., 1977, Assessing The Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process. Cambridge, Ballinger Publishing Company, 1977.

Effendy, M. Kejaksaan RI: posisi dan fungsinya dari perspektif hukum. Jakarta, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2005.

Marpaung, L. Perumusan Memori Kasasi & Peninjauan Kembali Perkara Pidana. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, 2000.

McDonald, William F. “The Role of the Victim in America” di dalam Randy E. Barnett dan John Hegel III, Assessing The Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process. Cambridge, Ballinger Publishing Company, 1977.

Nawawi Arief, Barda. Masalah Penegakan Hukum Dan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Dalam Penanggulangan Kejahatan. Jakarta, Kencana, 2008.

Prasetyo, R. Lembaga Peninjauan Kembali (PK) oleh Kejaksaan Agung. Jakarta, BPHN, 2010.

Reiff, Robert. The Invisible Victim. New York, Basic Books Inc. Publishers, 1979.

Yahya Harahap, M. Pembahasan Permasalahan Dan Penerapan KUHAP: Penyidikan dan penuntutan. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, 2006.

________________. “Ruang Lingkup Peninjauan Kembali". Kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung Pemeriksaan Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali Perkara Perdata. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, 2008.

________________. Ruang Lingkup Permasalahan Eksekusi Bidang Perdata. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, 2007.

________________. Upaya Hukum Luar Biasa Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP: Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi, dan Peninjauan Kembali. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, 2000.

Journals

Alamsyah, Afif and M. Taufik Makarao. “Kedudukan Kewarganegaraan Djoko Chandra Dalam Administrasi Kependudukan Dan Pembuatan Paspor Republik Indonesia.” Veritas: Jurnal Program Pascasarjana Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021, pp. 36-54, https://doi.org/10.34005/veritas.v7i1.1254.

Ardiansyah, Farangga Harki, et al. “Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Dalam Perkara Perdata (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 118/PK/Pdt/2018).” Journal Of Legal Research, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 2020, pp. 289-306, http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/jlr.

Arfa, Nys, et al. “Pengaturan Peninjauan Kembali Dalam Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia.” Jurnal Sains Sosio Humaniora, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020, pp. 102-112, https://repository.unja.ac.id/id/eprint/17731.

Arfan, Faiz Muhlizi. “Peninjauan Kembali Dalam Perkara Pidana Yang Berkeadilan Dan Berkepastian Hukum Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 34/PUU-XI/2013.” Jurnal Yudisial, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2015, pp. 145-166, http://dx.doi.org/10.29123/jy.v8i2.50.

Bola, Mustafa, et al. “Korelasi Putusan Hakim Tingkat Pertama, Tingkat Banding, dan Tingkat Kasasi (Suatu Studi Tentang Aliran Pemikiran Hukum).” Hasanudin Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2015, pp. 27-46, http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v1i1.38.

Lalamentik, Einstein E. “Peninjauan Kembali Oleh Jaksa Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia.” Lex Administratum, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2018, pp. 13-19, https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/administratum/article/view/22727.

Lubis, Nadia Soleha and Beniharmoni Harefa. “Problematika Peninjauan Kembali Terhadap Terpidana Yang Masuk Di Dalam Daftar Pencarian Orang.” Gorontalo Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 75-87, https://doi.org/10.32662/golrev.v4i1.1326.

Meutia, Pityani. “Pembatasan Peninjauan Kembali Perkara Perdata Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 108/PUU-XIV/2016.” Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2019, pp. 225-236, https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v16i2.490.

Mudzakkir. “Kedudukan Korban Tindak Pidana Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia Berdasarkan KUHP dan RUU KUHP.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2011, pp. 28-62, http://hdl.handle.net/11617/4190.

Ramdan, Ajie. “Kewenangan Penuntut Umum Mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No.33/Puu-Xiv/2016.” JIKH, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017, pp. 181-192, http://dx.doi.org/10.30641/kebijakan.2017.V11.181-192.

Ramiyanto. “Makna “Ahli Waris” Sebagai Subjek Pengajuan Peninjauan Kembali Kajian Putusan Nomor 97 PK/Pid/Sus/2012.” Jurnal Yudisial, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2016, pp. 51-71, https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.29123/jy.v9i1.31.

Silviana and Sonia Yanarika Widyahayu. “Analisis Terhadap Dasar Pengajuan Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali dengan Alasan Adanya Suatu Kekhilafan Hakim atau Suatu Kekeliruan yang Nyata Dalam Perkara Penipuan (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 91 PK/Pid/2014).” Jurnal Verstek, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp. 191-199, https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v4i2.38391.

Suhariyanto, Budi. “Aspek Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Lebih Dari Satu Kali Dalam Perkara Pidana (Perspektif Penegakan Keadilan, Kepastian Dan Kemanfaatan Hukum).” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2015, pp. 335-350, http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.2.2015.335-350.

Syahrial, Ismail Eka. “Kesesuaian Alasan Peninjauan Kembali Dalam Tindak Pidana Penipuan Dengan Ketentuan KUHAP (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 36 PK/Pid/2013), Jurnal Verstek, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, pp. 96-109, https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v5i2.33472.

Tarigan, Muhammad Ridwanta, et al. “Tinjauan Yuridis Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Yang Diajukan Oleh Penuntut Umum Dalam Perkara Pidana”. Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review, Vol. 1, Issue 5, 2022, pp. 308-321, https://doi.org/10.56128/ljoalr.v1i6.82.

Zulaiha, Siti, et al. “Enforcement of the Advocate Professional Code of Ethics in Client Assistance in Criminal Cases of Corruption.” Widya Pranata Hukum, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2023, pp. 33-49, https://doi.org/10.37631/widyapranata.v5i1.815.

Law and Regulations

Law No.8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code.

Law No.2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police.

Law No.18 of 2003 on Advocates.

Law No.48 of 2009 on Judicial Power.

Law No.11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law No.16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor's Office.

Constitutional Court Decision No. 33/PUU-XIV/2016.

Supreme Court Decision No. 55PK/Pid/1996.

Supreme Court Decision No.1688K/Pid/2000.

Supreme Court Decision No.12PK/Pid.Sus/2009.

South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 156/Pid.B/2000/PN.Jak.Sel.