Publication Search

The principle of the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal law that aims to protect the rights of suspects from the beginning of the legal process. This principle is enshrined in the 1945 Constitution and regulated in Article 8 of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which states that a person cannot be considered guilty unless a court decision with permanent legal force declares them guilty. The application of this principle at every stage of examination (investigation, prosecution, and trial) is crucial to ensuring the protection of the rights of perpetrators (suspects or defendants) and preventing the abuse of power that may harm individuals who have not been proven guilty. This research focuses on examining the consequences of violations of this principle in investigations and the protection of suspects’ rights within the criminal justice system, along with efforts to prevent such violations. The method used is a literature review with a juridical-normative approach. The findings indicate frequent neglect of the presumption of innocence, leading to human rights violations. To prevent this, stricter supervision by external monitoring bodies, such as the National Commission on Human Rights, is necessary to safeguard the rights of suspects.

Abstract. The high number of cases of violence against children, particularly children with disabilities, presents unique challenges for law enforcement, especially during investigations. One case that has captured public attention occurred in the Sleman judicial district. A child with a disability was abused in various ways by a caregiver at a daycare center. The research questions addressed in this study are, How does the law enforcement process for cases of violence against children with disabilities (a case study of child abuse in Sleman Regency) proceed at the investigation and prosecution stages; What challenges are encountered in the law enforcement process for cases of violence against children with disabilities at the investigation and prosecution stages? The research method used is empirical legal research, with data sources obtained through direct field research at police stations and district attorneys’ offices. Data were collected through interviews with informants. The research findings indicate that the legal enforcement process for cases of violence against children with disabilities, both at the investigative and prosecutorial stages, proceeds in accordance with procedures up to Stage 1 (the first stage), wherein the investigator submits the case file to the prosecutor’s office, and the prosecutor’s office has returned the case file (P19) to be supplemented in accordance with the public prosecutor’s instructions. The challenge faced is that the victim is no longer proactive regarding the reported case. Keywords: Violence, Children with Disabilities, Daycare, Investigation. Abstrak. Banyaknya kasus kekerasan pada anak, terutama anak dengan disabilitas menjadikan penegakan hukum memiliki tantangan tersendiri terutama pada saat pemeriksaan. Salah satu kasus yang menyita perhatian public terjadi di wilayah hukum Sleman. Anak disabilitas dianiaya oleh pengasuh dari tempat penitipan dengan berbagai cara. Rumusan masalah yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini, yaitu: Bagaimana proses penegakan hukum kasus kekerasan anak disabilitas (studi kasus kekerasan anak di wilayah Kabupaten Sleman) di tingkat penyidikan dan penuntutan; Bagaimana kendala yang dihadapi dalam proses penegakan hukum kasus kekerasan anak disabilitas (studi kasus kekerasan anak di wilayah hukum Kabupaten Sleman) di tingkat penyidikan dan penuntutan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam yaitu penelitian yuridis empiris dengan sumber data melakukan penelitian secara langsung di lapangan, yakni di kepolisian dan kejaksaan. Pengambilan data dilakukan dengan wawancara narasumber. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa proses penegakan hukum kasus kekerasan anak disabilitas (studi kasus kekerasan anak di wilayah hukum Sleman) baik di tingkat penyidikan dan di tingkat penuntutan berjalan sesuai prosedur sampai dengan tahap 1 (pertama) yaitu penyidik melakukan kirim berkas perkara kepada pihak kejaksaan dan dari pihak kejaksaan telah melakukan pengembalian berkas perkara (P19) untuk dilengkapinya berkas tersebut sesuai dengan petunjuk Jaksa Penuntut Umum. Kendala yang dihadapi yaitu pihak korban sudah tidak proaktif terkait kasus yang dilaporkan. Kata kunci: Kekerasan, Anak Disabilitas, Rumah Penitipan Anak, Penyidikan.

This research aims to analyze criminal acts that may be qualified as perpetrators of the crime of obstruction of justice from the perspective of the criminal law applicable in Indonesia, as well as to analyze the application of the law against perpetrators of obstruction of justice in Indonesia. The type of research used in this thesis is doctrinal research. The doctrinal approach has a normative character; therefore, its object of study consists of a set of legal norms (black letter law) at the level of application (professional constituency), or, at certain levels of analysis, this approach extends to the examination of legal theory. Based on the results of the research, the author finds that the provisions governing acts that may be qualified as the crime of obstruction of justice in Indonesia encompass all forms of interference, from the beginning to the end, with the entire ongoing legal and judicial process. A perpetrator of obstruction of justice is aware that a person has committed a crime or is undergoing a legal process and then deliberately commits acts that may hinder or obstruct law enforcement officials in conducting examinations of the criminal offender, with the purpose that the processes of investigation, prosecution, or examination before the court are impeded, cannot be carried out, or ultimately fail to be carried out. The forms of legal enforcement against perpetrators of acts obstructing the judicial process (obstruction of justice) in Indonesia include, among others, intentionally damaging, concealing, or destroying evidence before or after the commencement of the investigation process.

Corruption remains a systemic challenge in Indonesia, particularly in the administration of government grant funding, undermining public trust, institutional integrity, and sustainable development. Despite the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, KPK) and other specialized bodies, law enforcement continues to face institutional, political, and cultural barriers. This study explores how Islamic criminal law can strengthen anti-corruption strategies by integrating empirical legal practices with normative religious principles. Using a normative-empirical socio-legal approach, the research combines case studies of KPK’s enforcement processes with doctrinal analysis of fiqh jināyah. Data were collected through legal document analysis, policy reviews, and qualitative evaluations of institutional reports and court rulings. Findings indicate that Islamic legal concepts such as khiyānah (breach of trust), ghulūl (misappropriation of public assets), amānah (trustworthiness), ʿadl (justice), and maṣlaḥah (public interest) provide a strong ethical foundation that complements positive law enforcement. While KPK has demonstrated effectiveness in investigation, prosecution, and prevention, its performance is constrained by political pressure, regulatory gaps, and limited resources. The study concludes that embedding Islamic ethical principles into governance, legal education, and public administration can enhance institutional accountability, reinforce preventive measures, and cultivate a culture of integrity. This normative convergence advances socio-legal pluralism and offers practical insights for value-based anti-corruption policy in Indonesia.

The criminal justice system in Indonesia is very concerned about money laundering crimes that continue to grow along with technological advances and the complexity of modern economic crimes. This study examines in depth the legal provisions related to TPPU in Indonesia, which is based on Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crimes. This research aims to identify the role of prosecutors as law enforcers in applying elements of anti-trafficking at the investigation and prosecution stages, as well as to analyze various obstacles that arise in the evidentiary process in court. Using a normative juridical approach, this study utilizes literature analysis, court decision review, and evaluation of relevant legal provisions. The findings of the study show that proving preliminary crimes and the flow of funds from crimes requires public prosecutors to have a comprehensive understanding of money laundering mechanisms, including the placement, layering, and integration stages. In practice, prosecutors face various challenges, such as difficulties in tracing the origins of assets disguised through complex transactions, limited access to financial technology data, and lack of cooperation support between law enforcement and financial institutions. These obstacles often cause the proving process to be protracted and less effective. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the capacity of law enforcement officials, strengthen coordination between agencies, and use more optimal technology to support efforts to eradicate trafficking more effectively and comprehensively.

The pretrial institution serves to regulate the use of coercive measures by authorized organizations during the investigation and prosecution stages. The establishment of this institution is a primary priority aimed at protecting the rights of suspects, particularly in cases involving unlawful arrest or detention, the termination of investigations and prosecutions, and other similar circumstances. However, several weaknesses remain in both the design and implementation of this institution within the judicial system, resulting in insufficient protection of human rights for suspects, despite its regulation under positive law, namely Law Number 8 of 1981. Efforts to safeguard the human rights of suspects during the investigation process constitute the main focus of this study, which examines the legal status of pretrial procedures within Indonesia’s criminal justice system, the challenges in their implementation as a means of protection, the effectiveness of pretrial rulings in this context, and their implications for subsequent investigations.

International criminal law is a crucial instrument within the international legal system designed to address serious crimes that transcend national jurisdiction, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. International criminal law serves as a means to uphold justice, maintain international order, and prevent impunity for perpetrators of serious crimes that have a broad impact on the global community. This study aims to examine the enforcement of international criminal law in the modern era, emphasizing law enforcement mechanisms and the role of cooperation between states and international institutions. The research method used is normative juridical research, with an approach to relevant laws and regulations, legal doctrine, and court decisions. The results indicate that the effectiveness of international criminal law enforcement still faces various obstacles, primarily stemming from state political interests, weak commitment to international cooperation, and inconsistencies between legal norms and their implementation. The principle of complementarity is a fundamental element of this system, as it positions states as the primary actors in the prosecution process, while international judicial institutions play a complementary role if national mechanisms are ineffective. Furthermore, harmonization of national laws with international criminal law provisions and strengthening cross-border cooperation are determining factors in the success of law enforcement. This study concludes that synergy between states and international institutions, accompanied by strong political commitment, is a key prerequisite for the realization of a just and sustainable international criminal law enforcement system.

The Attorney General's Office plays a strategic role as a neutral facilitator that initiates, leads, and oversees the peace process, from peace offers and mediation to the issuance of a suspension of prosecution based on Attorney General Regulation No. 15 of 2020, while still considering the best interests of children, the restoration of social relations, and the legal benefits for all parties. This approach is considered effective in minimizing the traumatic impact of formal judicial proceedings on children while encouraging the social reintegration of perpetrators. However, the implementation of restorative justice still faces internal obstacles, such as limited operational regulations, the understanding and capacity of law enforcement officials, and suboptimal infrastructure. On the other hand, external obstacles arise from low public awareness of the law, a tendency to demand severe punishment, and a culture that emphasizes pride, which hinders the acceptance of peaceful resolutions. This study emphasizes the importance of strengthening regulations, improving the competence of officials, optimizing the function of Restorative Justice Houses, and intensifying public awareness so that the application of restorative justice in cases of child abuse is not only a procedural alternative but truly functions as a fair and sustainable recovery mechanism.

In the customary law system, there is a pattern of punishment and prosecution which is more or less similar to the Islamic legal system, where the role of the victim's family is very important in determining whether or not the perpetrator will be prosecuted and punished. In customary law, legal settlements are carried out with an emphasis on togetherness or harmony. Settlement of criminal cases, especially bullying through customary law, is a process of resolving cases outside of court which consists of first, a mediation system with a consensus approach through deliberation. Second, the restorative justice system is a case resolution system with the aim of restoring the situation that arose for the victim so that a sense of brotherhood between each party is re-established. This system produces an agreement that is a win-win solution, guarantees the confidentiality of the parties' disputes, avoids delays caused by procedural and administrative matters, and resolves problems comprehensively together and while maintaining good relations. Thus, these customary sanctions do not provide legal protection and fulfillment of children's rights for children who are victims of sexual violence. In sexual crimes against children, children are positioned as victims who experience detrimental impacts, namely physical and psychological harm. Therefore, it is mandatory to be protected, not judged.

The rise in hate speech cases involving minors on social media has become a pressing legal issue in the digital era. As more children engage with online platforms, the risks of harmful behaviors such as hate speech have grown, presenting challenges for legal systems worldwide. This study aims to examine the enforcement of law against children who commit hate speech crimes on social media, with a focus on understanding both the legal processes and the obstacles encountered during enforcement. Using a combination of normative and empirical juridical approaches, the study collects data through interviews with law enforcement officials in Bandar Lampung. The findings indicate that, although the juvenile justice system emphasizes restorative justice and provides diversion mechanisms for minor offenders, the practical application of these principles remains insufficient. Key technical challenges, such as difficulties in tracking accounts and the ease with which digital evidence is deleted, pose significant barriers to effective prosecution. Additionally, structural issues, including limited resources and the lack of digital legal literacy among law enforcement, exacerbate the problem. Despite these challenges, the study identifies best practices in diversion, such as involving psychologists, probation officers, and community leaders, as potential pathways to more humane and rehabilitative resolutions. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of strengthening coordination between agencies, improving law enforcement capacity in digital forensics, and implementing early digital literacy education. These efforts are crucial for creating a more effective legal framework to address hate speech cases committed by children on social media, ensuring both justice and rehabilitation in the digital age.

In a criminal justice system that upholds the principle of justice, the protection of suspects' rights is a crucial and fundamental component. Investigators play a crucial role in ensuring suspects' rights are protected during the investigation process, including the right to legal counsel, the right to access information, and the right to be free from arbitrary prosecution. The aim of this study is to explore the role of investigators in guaranteeing these rights and highlight challenges in their implementation. The study revealed that many suspects did not receive legal assistance from the beginning of the examination, lacked understanding of their rights, and faced investigations that often violated due process of law. This problem is exacerbated by limited human resources, inadequate internal oversight, and lack of ongoing training for investigators. These factors contribute to the failure to enforce the rights of suspects as a whole, which impacts the fairness and integrity of the legal process. In an effort to realize a fast, simple, and inexpensive judicial process, as promised in Law Number 48 of 2009, this study emphasizes the need for reforms to strengthen the investigation process. The reforms include improvements in the aspects of supervision and more in-depth training of investigators on human rights, so that they can better understand and implement the protection of the rights of suspects. In addition, the use of technology in investigations, such as digital-based information systems to manage evidence and legal processes, can increase transparency and accuracy in every stage of investigation. Strengthening internal supervision mechanisms is also very important to minimize abuse of authority by investigators. On the other hand, it is important to periodically evaluate the application of standard operating procedures (SOPs) in investigations, in order to ensure compliance with applicable laws and provide justice for suspects.

This research aims (1) examine the implementation of restorative justice by the Buleleng District Prosecutor's Office in cases of receiving stolen goods (penadahan) committed through the Facebook Marketplace platform, with a primary focus on the application of restorative justice despite the loss value exceeding the threshold set by prevailing laws and regulations; and (2) identify the considerations used by the Buleleng District Prosecutor’s Office in applying restorative justice to cases of receiving stolen goods conducted via Facebook Marketplace. The research adopts an empirical juridical method with a descriptive approach. Participants were selected purposively using purposive sampling. Data collection techniques included direct observation, interviews with relevant parties, and a review of legal documents, which were then analyzed qualitatively.The findings indicate that (1) resolution through Restorative Justice remains possible even if the loss exceeds IDR 2,500,000, as long as all substantive requirements stipulated in Prosecutor's Regulation Number 15 of 2020 are fulfilled. The decision to terminate prosecution in this case was based on considerations of justice for the victim and the fact that the perpetrator’s level of culpability was not considered severe; and(2) the victim did not object to the act of receiving stolen goods and prioritized the return of their motorcycle, which was successfully recovered in its original condition. The victim also supported the peace process and did not file charges against the alleged receiver.  

The Public Prosecutor holds a central role in the criminal justice system as the primary controller of the prosecution process. This authority is based on the fundamental principle of Dominus Litis, which literally translates to "master of the case." This paper aims to deeply analyze the implementation of the Dominus Litis principle and to examine the various interests underlying the Public Prosecutor's authority in controlling a criminal case. Using a normative juridical research method with a literature and conceptual approach, this study investigates how the principle legitimizes the prosecutor's power to determine whether a case is suitable for trial, to terminate it, or to resolve it through alternative mechanisms. The analysis reveals that the prosecutor's interest in case control is not merely limited to technical-juridical aspects but also encompasses broader considerations such as the public interest, law enforcement efficiency, and the achievement of restorative justice. While granting significant discretion, this absolute authority also raises discourse on the importance of effective oversight mechanisms to prevent potential abuse of power and ensure accountability. It is concluded that the implementation of the Dominus Litis principle must always be balanced with transparency and objectivity to ensure that case control by the prosecutor genuinely aims to achieve substantive justice

The phenomenon of illegal cigarette circulation can still be found especially in Jember district. The characteristics of illegal cigarettes include the absence of excise stamps on the cigarette packs, attaching cigarette packs with fake excise tape or placing excise tape that is not in accordance with its intended use. The Directorate General of Customs and Excise has the authority to take action and investigate illegal cigarette distributors in accordance with Law Number 39 of 2007 concerning amendments to Law Number 11 of 1995 about excise. The purpose of this researcher is to find out the law enforcement process against illegal cigarette dealers in Jember Regency by the Jember Regenc KPPBC. This research method uses empirical legal research. Primary and secondary data obtained through interviews with staff of the prosecution and investigation section of the Jember Regency KPPBC. The data analysis method is descriptive qualitative. The results of this study are that law enforcement carried out by the Jember Regency KPPBC has not been able to be carried out optimally because in its implementation there are many obstacles such as a very wide illegal cigarette distribution network so that there isa lack of officers. However, these various obstacles can hopefully be overcome with existing efforts.  

The phenomenon of law enforcement in Indonesia today often causes controversy, polemics, resistance, protests or sharp criticism from various groups. The opinions of various parties who disagree with this legal process are often based on the assumption of harming the legal justice of the community who actually no longer agree with the formal legal process through the criminal justice system. One concept that is considered appropriate to overcome various legal problems as described above is to use the restorative justice principle approach. The purpose of this study is to determine the regulation of criminal law related to the settlement of criminal cases by the police and prosecutors by applying the principle of restorative justice based on progressive legal theory. The method used in this study is the normative juridical method. The results of this study provide an overview that: First, Legal regulations related to the settlement of criminal cases by police investigators and prosecutors using the principle of restorative justice are regulated in Articles 13 to 15 of the Chief of Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021 concerning Handling of Criminal Acts Based on Restorative Justice (PTPBKR) and Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Office Regulation Number 15 of 2020 concerning Termination of Prosecution Based on Restorative Justice (PPBKR). Second, The procedures for resolving criminal cases using the restorative justice principle approach by the police are regulated in Articles 11 to 18 of the PTPBKR, while the procedures for resolving criminal cases using the restorative justice approach by the prosecutor's office are regulated in Articles 7 to 14 of the PPBKR

This study aims to find out about . What are the legal provisions for determining suspects as pretrial objects in criminal law and b What are the legal implications for re-determination of suspects after being canceled by a pretrial decision. The data collection method in this study was carried out by literature study, which is a way of collecting data by searching and studying library materials (literature, research results, scientific magazines, scientific bulletins, scientific journals, etc.). Legal materials are collected through inventory procedures and identification of laws and regulations, as well as classification and systematization of legal materials according to research problems. Therefore, the data collection technique used in this study was a literature study. The results of the study show that pretrial is a new thing in the life of law enforcement in Indonesia, has a goal to be upheld and protected, namely protecting the rights of suspects at the level of investigation and prosecution or preventing the arbitrariness of law enforcement officials against someone who is undergoing a legal process and To guarantee the protection of human rights and for law enforcers to carry out their duties consistently, the Criminal Procedure Code establishes a new institution called pretrial. Seeing the contents of the decision as referred to in Article 82 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that there are 3 (three) types of implementation of pretrial decisions: committing certain acts, paying an amount of money and providing rehabilitation. The legal basis for pretrial authority in deciding the suspect's determination is found in the Constitutional Court (MK) decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 which states that the determination of the status of a suspect is included in the object of pretrial and also in its ruling that Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as the pretrial is not interpreted including determination of suspects, searches , and confiscation. Meanwhile, the background to the addition of pretrial authority in deciding the determination of the suspect is that the determination of the suspect's status is the end result of the investigation activities carried out which are none other than the object of pretrial. Criminal acts after the status of the determination of the suspect is declared invalid in the pretrial decision are basically still valid. Examination in pretrial cases is only in the administrative area of the investigative process. Often the Pretrial decision which cancels the determination of the suspect by the investigator, is based.

This study discusses the legal vacuum that occurs in the pre-prosecution process, especially related to the absence of time limits and frequency of return of examination report files (BAP) between investigators and public prosecutors. This vacuum has the potential to hinder the principle of fast, simple, and low-cost justice that should be applied in the Indonesian criminal justice system. This study proposes solutions in the form of setting clear time limits, improving coordination between investigators and public prosecutors, and providing training to improve human resource capacity. In addition, the application of sanctions for parties who violate the provisions of pre-prosecution is an important step to ensure the smooth running of the judicial process. This study is expected to contribute to increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system in Indonesia.    

Artificial Intelligence (AI)plays a vital role in criminal investigations, offering innovative solutions to challenges faced by law enforcement. With its fast and accurate data analysis capabilities, AI can identify behavioral patterns, detect anomalies, and predict potential crimes. Technologies such as facial recognition, social network analysis, and natural language processing help speed up the investigation process and improve prosecution effectiveness. However, the application of AI also raises ethical challenges, including privacy issues and potential bias in algorithms. Therefore, it is important to develop a framework that ensures the responsible use of AI in a legal context.    

This study uses empirical juridical research, which is research with field data as the main source of data, such as the results of interviews and observations, with the aim of analyzing and describing the law enforcement model for cases of corruption in the development funds of the Waigete Health Center. as well as identifying and analyzing factors that hinder law enforcement in the case of corruption of the Waigete Health Center development funds. The results of the discussion in this study show that, (1). The Waigete  Health Center uses the Due Process Model which emphasizes the need to ensure that every individual has the right to be treated fairly and has access to an independent court including investigation, prosecution, and fair justice. and the right to appeal, but with strict legal procedures, this model slows down the process of resolving cases.  The crime eradication process focuses more on the interests of the rights of suspects than on the public interest, so according to researchers in the process of resolving corruption cases, this model is not appropriate to use because it emphasizes justice and human rights but also has the potential to slow down the legal process. (2). The factors that hinder law enforcement in handling corruption cases of the Waigete Health Center development fund consist of two factors, namely internal factors, namely the lack of prosecutors who slow down the law enforcement process and reduce the effectiveness of case handling, and external factors, namely the slow examination process and the loss calculation process so as to hinder law enforcement.

This research explores the application of restorative justice, focusing on traffic cases resulting in fatalities, as outlined in Chapter XIX of the KUHP, which addresses crimes against the body. The study examines instances where traffic accidents caused deaths but were resolved through restorative justice practices. The findings indicate that within the National Police institution, the application of restorative justice in traffic cases is governed by both general and special conditions. These conditions are often conflicting, as general regulations typically reject restorative justice if a victim dies, yet special conditions allow for the possibility of resolving such cases at the investigation and inquiry levels. Similarly, at the Prosecutor's Office, the study revealed that the process of halting prosecution is generally not permissible for cases carrying sentences of over five years. However, in specific instances, exceptions are made, even though the Prosecutor's Office does not specifically address traffic crimes but regulates them under general provisions. This leads to an asynchronous approach to case resolution through restorative justice. The author concludes that there is a critical need for a dedicated law on Restorative Justice to ensure regulatory synchronization, thus providing clear and consistent guidelines for the application of restorative justice in traffic cases resulting in fatalities.