Valeri, Aldar (2025) Tinjauan Yuridis terhadap Kewenangan Hakim dalam Menetapkan Tersangka Berdasarkan UU Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Perantasan Kerusakan Hutan (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 145/PID.B/2014/PN DPU). Masters thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text skripsi_221022222_watermark.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (10MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Based on the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, the authority to determine a suspect is the authority of the investigator who is part of the investigation activity, while the judge has the authority to try criminal cases submitted at trial. However, after the issuance of Law Number 18 of 2013 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction, judges have expanded their authority to determine suspects in criminal acts of forest destruction, where this authority was then implemented by the Panel of Judges at the Dompu District Court in Decision Number 145/Pid.B/2014/PN DPU which named a person as a suspect at the Dompu District Court. The main problem in the research is how the judge's authority is in determining the status of a suspect based on Law no. 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Damage and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the legal considerations of the panel of judges in determining the status of a suspect in Decision Number 145/Pid.B/2014/PN DPU The type and nature of this research method is Normative Research, descriptive in nature, namely describing the determination of suspects by the judge based on Law no. 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction which has been implemented in decision Number 145/Pid.B/2014/PN DPU. Data and data sources consist of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. Based on the research results, it is known that in Article 36 letter d of Law no. 18 of 2013 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction has expressly given the authority to the Judge to designate a person as a suspect and put him on the wanted list. The expansion of the judge's authority is certainly not in line with the authority to determine suspects which is given to investigators in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which is the guideline in implementing formal criminal law and this law also does not clearly regulate the procedures for judges in determining suspects even though the provisions of Article 36 letter d of Law Number 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention of Forest Eradication and Destruction include provisions governing formal criminal law so that if implemented it will give rise to new problems in its implementation. Meanwhile, in considering decision Number 145/Pid.B/2014/PN DPU, it was discovered that the panel of judges considered that there was another party involved in the case, namely a person named Haris, where Haris' involvement was obtained from the statements of the Defendant and the statements of witness M. Sidik Hasan, which were in agreement with each other, but in the case file, neither the Investigator nor the Public Prosecutor attached any documents regarding Haris' involvement, so the panel of judges then named Haris as a suspect and was included in the wanted list.

Actions (login required)

View Item