Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini membahas penerapan asas legalitas dalam konteks hukum acara pidana di Indonesia, khususnya melalui analisis terhadap Rancangan Undangan-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (RUU HAP) yang dibahas dalam rapat DPR antara tahun 1979 hingga 1981 dan putusan praperadilan Angin Prayitno. Asas legalitas, yang berfungsi melindungi Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM), menjadi fundamental dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) yang disahkan pada tahun 1981. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode doktrinal untuk menelusuri proses legislasi RUU HAP dan relevansinya dengan pemikiran hukum barat. Penelitian ini menyoroti asas legalitas dalam Pembahasan  RUU HAP yang sejatinya merupakan suatu asas yang membatasi aparat penegak hukum untuk melaksanakan hukum acara pidana untuk bertindak sesuai dengan undang-undang. Asas legalitas ini merupakan suatu pemenuhan unsur rule of law serta perancangan kodifikasi dan unifikasi hukum sebagai upaya pemenuhan HAM. Melalui studi kasus putusan praperadilan Angin Prayitno, ditemukan bahwa hakim gagal menerapkan asas legalitas secara tepat dalam menentukan status pemohon. Dalam putusan Nomor 68/Pid.Pra/2021/PN Jkt.Sel yang penulis teliti, Hakim tidak memberikan dasar hukum apapun dalam menentukan status Angin Prayitno sebagai Aparat Penegak Hukum yang mana tidak sesuai dengan konsep asas legalitas. Hakim juga tidak tepat dalam melakukan perluasan maka Penyelenggara Negara yang mana dalam Undang-Undang sejatinya sudah dibatasi.  Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penerapan asas legalitas dalam KUHAP masih menghadapi berbagai tantangan, terutama dalam praktik peradilan. Penulis merekomendasikan perlunya peningkatan pemahaman agar penerapan asas legalitas dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik untuk memastikan perlindungan HAM dan keadilan dalam sistem hukum pidana di Indonesia serta tercapainya cita-cita Rule of Law

---

This research discusses the application of the principle of legality in the context of criminal procedure law in Indonesia, specifically through an analysis of the Draft Law on Criminal Procedure (RUU HAP) discussed in DPR meetings between 1979 and 1981 and the pretrial decision of Angin Prayitno. The principle of legality, which serves to protect human rights, became fundamental in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) passed in 1981. This research uses a doctrinal method to trace the legislative process of the Criminal Procedure Bill and its relevance to western legal thought. This research highlights the principle of legality in the discussion of the Draft Law on Criminal Procedure, which is actually a principle that limits law enforcement officials to implement criminal procedure law to act in accordance with the law. This principle of legality is a fulfillment of the elements of the rule of law and the design of legal codification and unification as an effort to fulfill human rights. Through a case study of Angin Prayitno's pretrial decision, it was found that the judge failed to properly apply the principle of legality in determining the status of the applicant. In the decision Number 68/Pid.Pra/2021/PN Jkt.Sel that enuilt researched, the judge did not provide any legal basis in determining Angin Prayitno's status as a law enforcement officer, which is not in accordance with the concept of the principle of legality. The judge is also incorrect in expanding the State Organizer which in the Act has actually been limited.  The conclusion of this research shows that the application of the principle of legality in KUHAP still faces various challenges, especially in judicial practice. The author recommends the need for increased understanding so that the application of the principle of legality can be implemented properly to ensure the protection of human rights and justice in the criminal law system in Indonesia and the achievement of the ideals of the Rule of Law."

"Penelitian ini membahas penerapan asas legalitas dalam konteks hukum acara pidana di Indonesia, khususnya melalui analisis terhadap Rancangan Undangan-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (RUU HAP) yang dibahas dalam rapat DPR antara tahun 1979 hingga 1981 dan putusan praperadilan Angin Prayitno. Asas legalitas, yang berfungsi melindungi Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM), menjadi fundamental dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) yang disahkan pada tahun 1981. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode doktrinal untuk menelusuri proses legislasi RUU HAP dan relevansinya dengan pemikiran hukum barat. Penelitian ini menyoroti asas legalitas dalam Pembahasan  RUU HAP yang sejatinya merupakan suatu asas yang membatasi aparat penegak hukum untuk melaksanakan hukum acara pidana untuk bertindak sesuai dengan undang-undang. Asas legalitas ini merupakan suatu pemenuhan unsur rule of law serta perancangan kodifikasi dan unifikasi hukum sebagai upaya pemenuhan HAM. Melalui studi kasus putusan praperadilan Angin Prayitno, ditemukan bahwa hakim gagal menerapkan asas legalitas secara tepat dalam menentukan status pemohon. Dalam putusan Nomor 68/Pid.Pra/2021/PN Jkt.Sel yang penulis teliti, Hakim tidak memberikan dasar hukum apapun dalam menentukan status Angin Prayitno sebagai Aparat Penegak Hukum yang mana tidak sesuai dengan konsep asas legalitas. Hakim juga tidak tepat dalam melakukan perluasan maka Penyelenggara Negara yang mana dalam Undang-Undang sejatinya sudah dibatasi.  Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penerapan asas legalitas dalam KUHAP masih menghadapi berbagai tantangan, terutama dalam praktik peradilan. Penulis merekomendasikan perlunya peningkatan pemahaman agar penerapan asas legalitas dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik untuk memastikan perlindungan HAM dan keadilan dalam sistem hukum pidana di Indonesia serta tercapainya cita-cita Rule of Law

---

This research discusses the application of the principle of legality in the context of criminal procedure law in Indonesia, specifically through an analysis of the Draft Law on Criminal Procedure (RUU HAP) discussed in DPR meetings between 1979 and 1981 and the pretrial decision of Angin Prayitno. The principle of legality, which serves to protect human rights, became fundamental in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) passed in 1981. This research uses a doctrinal method to trace the legislative process of the Criminal Procedure Bill and its relevance to western legal thought. This research highlights the principle of legality in the discussion of the Draft Law on Criminal Procedure, which is actually a principle that limits law enforcement officials to implement criminal procedure law to act in accordance with the law. This principle of legality is a fulfillment of the elements of the rule of law and the design of legal codification and unification as an effort to fulfill human rights. Through a case study of Angin Prayitno's pretrial decision, it was found that the judge failed to properly apply the principle of legality in determining the status of the applicant. In the decision Number 68/Pid.Pra/2021/PN Jkt.Sel that enuilt researched, the judge did not provide any legal basis in determining Angin Prayitno's status as a law enforcement officer, which is not in accordance with the concept of the principle of legality. The judge is also incorrect in expanding the State Organizer which in the Act has actually been limited.  The conclusion of this research shows that the application of the principle of legality in KUHAP still faces various challenges, especially in judicial practice. The author recommends the need for increased understanding so that the application of the principle of legality can be implemented properly to ensure the protection of human rights and justice in the criminal law system in Indonesia and the achievement of the ideals of the Rule of Law."

"Oakeshott, Hayek and Schmitt are associated with a conservative reaction to the 'progressive' forces of the twentieth century. Each was an acute analyst of the juristic form of the modern state and the relationship of that form to the idea of liberty under a system of public, general law. Hayek had the highest regard for Schmitt's understanding of the rule of law state despite Schmitt's hostility to it, and he owed the distinction he drew in his own work between a purpose-governed form of state and a law-governed form to Oakeshott. However, the three have until now rarely been considered together, something which will be ever more apparent as political theorists, lawyers and theorists of international relations turn to the foundational texts of twentieth-century thought at a time when debate about liberal democratic theory might appear to have run out of steam."