Siregar, Jusril Akbar Fajar (2025) Tinjauan Yuridis Praperadilan Atas Penetapan Tersangka Pada Tindak Pidana Penyertaan Modal BUMD PT. Gemilang Citra Mandiri (Studi Putusan Praperadilan Nomor: 2/Pid.Pra/2022/PN.Tbh). Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text skripsi_181010079_watermark.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The state is obliged to uphold and develop the law without exception. This includes upholding criminal law and criminal procedural law in Indonesia. The Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) regulates pretrial procedures, which are closely related to the fulfillment of individual rights and the enforcement of obligations. In the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, the Court expanded the scope of pretrial objects to include the legality of suspect designation, searches, and seizures. The increasing number of pretrial applications demonstrates that this legal mechanism aims to seek justice against arbitrary actions by law enforcement officials, including in cases such as the criminal offense involving capital participation in the establishment of PT. Gemilang Citra Mandiri. This research focuses on the legal basis and reasoning behind the pretrial application, as well as the judge's consideration regarding the designation of a suspect in the criminal case of capital participation by the Regional-Owned Enterprise (BUMD) PT. Gemilang Citra Mandiri (A Study of Pretrial Decision Number: 2/Pid.Pra/2022/PN.Tbh). This study uses normative legal research methods. The objective is to examine the legal grounds and reasoning for the pretrial application and to analyze the judge's considerations in the suspect designation related to the alleged criminal offense. The findings indicate that the pretrial application was submitted by the Petitioner on the grounds that the designation of suspect status was carried out without a lawful investigation process and did not fulfill the principles of due process of law. This was deemed contrary to the rule of law principles enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. The judge’s legal considerations in the pretrial decision emphasized the fulfillment of formal and material requirements, such as the presence of valid evidence in court. In this ruling, the judge granted the application of the Petitioner, Indra Muchlis Adnan, declaring that the suspect designation letter, the investigation process, and the suspect designation by the Head of the Indragiri Hilir District Attorney’s Office were unlawful and lacked legal standing. As a result, the court annulled the suspect designation, ordered the termination of the investigation, and restored the legal rights of the Petitioner.

Actions (login required)

View Item