The above raises differences in interpretation by judges, namely there are judges who accept and reject. This has an impact on the emergence of the Constitutional Court decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 which has implications for expanding the scope of pre-trial which includes provisions for determining suspects, searches and confiscation in a pre-trial object. Therefore, expanding the contents of Article 77 letter a of the Criminal Procedure Code is an urgent matter for reforming the Criminal Procedure Code to include expanding the object of pre-trial in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code.

Currently, a criminal case is not only carried out by individuals, but also by legal entities such as corporations. In general, the Criminal Procedure Code has not regulated criminal events carried out by corporations. The Criminal Procedure Code needs to regulate general rules that regulate criminal procedure law provisions that apply to corporations. For now, the law that regulates the procedural law aspects carried out by corporations is Article 20 of Law no. 31 of 1999. However, even though there are special regulations, a general rule should be formulated as a basis so as to avoid errors that still occur in practice, such as the investigation process and minutes in the name of the administrator, but the indictment is made in the name of the corporation. This reflects the inconsistency of the judicial process in practice.

If it is related to the expansion of the pre-trial object, there is still a legal vacuum regarding the provisions for corporations to file for pre-trial. This has not been regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. If we look at the Criminal Procedure Code, the suspect in question refers to an individual, not a corporation. Therefore, based on the applicable Criminal Procedure Code, a corporation cannot file for pre-trial because the applicant does not fulfill his position as applicant, unless the person designated as a suspect is an administrator who is an individual.

Then, in articles 79 – 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the subjects who can file for pre-trial, it is stated that those who can file for pre-trial are suspects or interested third parties. In this case, there is no explanation regarding interested third parties in the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a shortcoming of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, currently the phrase has been interpreted more broadly in the Constitutional Court decision No. 12/PUU-X/2012.

Looking at the Problems and Urgency of the Renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code in Order to Perfect the Criminal Justice System
Illustration Image by Editors / Source: DALLE

Conclusion

Based on these problems, it is imperative to adjust the rules in the Criminal Procedure Code to fix the judicial system which is considered not in accordance with developments in society. Moreover, the Criminal Procedure Code still does not provide sufficient justice for the community, causing disappointment with law enforcement. For example, the detention process is considered ineffective because if all processes are followed, it can take up to 400 days if it is related to Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Action is needed to overcome the problems in the Criminal Procedure Code by updating the Criminal Procedure Code accompanied by adjustments to developments in society that affect the substantive meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. Human rights values need to be heavily involved so that criminal procedure law can run as it should, by aligning justice and humanity.

It cannot be denied that the problems with the Criminal Procedure Code do not only stem from the Criminal Procedure Code itself, but could also be due to law enforcement actions that are not in accordance with the provisions. Apart from that, the success of a law depends on its law enforcement. If law enforcement officers do not act in accordance with the provisions, no matter how good the regulations are, they will not give meaning to the purpose of the existence of these rules. There needs to be a rule of supervision over law enforcement officers so that they can carry out fair law enforcement. In the end, it can create a criminal procedure law that is more responsive, accommodating and aspirational, both from the point of view of the rules and the law enforcement officials who implement it.

Bibliography

  • Abdullah, Muhammad Zen. “The Urgency of the Need for National Criminal Procedure Law Reform.” Jurnal Ilmiah Universitas Batanghari Jambi 20, no. 1 (February 2020: 282-283. doi:10.33087/jiubj.v20i1.885.
  • Taqwaddin. “Regarding Detention in Criminal Cases” pt-nad.co.id. https://www.ptnad.go.id/new/content/artikel/20220623163528141086492562b433e00e483.html (accessed 14 September 2023)
  • Harahap, Yahya. Discussion Problems and Application of the Criminal Procedure Code: Investigation and Prosecution. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2000
  • M Hasriady K, Muhammad Takdir, Hardianto Djanggih. “Problematics of the Detention Process in the Justice System.” Kalabbirang Law Journal 3, no. 2 (April 2021): 12-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.kljv4i1.
  • Ohoiwutun, Y. A. Triana. “Implementation of Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 Concerning the Determination of Suspects from a Justice Perspective (Case Study of Case No. 04/Pid.Pra/2016/PN.Bw).” Lecturer Scientific Publication Universitas Jember 2, (July 2017). https://repository.unej.ac.id/handle/123456789/80344#.
  • Tim Pokja Penyusun Pedoman Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Procedures for Handling Corporate Criminal Cases. Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung, 2017
  • F, Bambang Dwi Baskoro, Sukinta. “Review of the Renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code as the Basis for the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia.” Diponegoro Law Journal 5, no. 2 (July 2016): 5-10. doi:https://doi.org/10.14710/dlj.2016.12606.
  • Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.