This study aims to determine the validity of the presumption of innocence principle against perpetrators or suspected perpetrators of criminal acts of terrorism committed by law enforcement officials, especially Densus 88. This paper uses a statute approach and a conceptual approach. The results showed that the principle of presumption of innocence in handling criminal acts of terrorism is, in fact, still often ignored by law enforcement officials. Even the data obtained shows that several suspects/perpetrators have died during the legal process they underwent, as well as the actions of law enforcement officials who often commit acts that exceed limits and violate human rights. This principle needs to be implemented and strictly regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code as the master procedural law as well as in the law on the eradication of criminal acts of terrorism so that the strength and application of this principle increasingly get a place and position that can protect perpetrators/suspected perpetrators of criminal acts of terrorism.

This paper aims to analyze and correct misconceptions about the tendency towards legal research that is prevalent in our midst, especially legal research carried out by students who will complete their studies. The approach methods used in this paper are conceptual approach, analytical approach, and theoretical approach. Legal research so far has often been interpreted similarly to social research (identical). To overcome such an understanding, the science of law must be restored to its original identity. This effort can be made by making introductory courses in legal science, legal research methods, and legal philosophy as courses as the main "spearhead" that must be strengthened in the law faculty curriculum by providing epistemological understanding as the main foundation of legal identity. Therefore, the role of the three courses is not "just" taught, but needs to be positioned as a guide that directs that law and social science are on different paths and it is impossible for social science methods to be applied in legal science. Legal science is prescriptive, meaning prescribing, advocating, or recommending something to do/not do. In short, the science of law aims to judge something. This is different from social science in general which is descriptive, just tasked with presenting and describing facts that occur in society. Ideally, good legal research is directed to examine legal norms, principles, values, theories, and concepts. Not studying social facts, as is true in the social sciences. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan meluruskan miskonsepsi kecenderungan arah penelitian hukum yang lazim mengemuka di tengah-tengah kita, khususnya penelitian hukum yang diusung oleh mahasiswa yang akan menyelesaikan studi. Metode pendekatan yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah pendekatan konseptual, pendekatan analitis dan pendekatan teoretis. Peneltian hukum selama ini acap kali dimaknai serupa dengan penelitian sosial (identik). Untuk mengatasi pemahaman semacam itu, ilmu hukum harus dikembalikan ke jati dirinya yang asli.  Upaya tersebut dapat dilakukan dengan menjadikan mata kuliah pengantar ilmu hukum, metode penelitian hukum, dan filsafat hukum sebagai mata kuliah sebagai “ujung tombak” utama yang harus diperkuat dalam kurikulum fakultas hukum dengan memberikan pemahaman epistemologis sebagai landasan utama jati diri ilmu hukum. Oleh karena itu, peranan ketiga mata kuliah tersebut tidak “sekadar” diajarkan, namun perlu diposisikan sebagai pemandu yang mengarahkan bahwa ilmu hukum dan imu sosial berada pada jalur yang berbeda dan tidak mungkin metode ilmu sosial diterapkan dalam ilmu hukum. Ilmu hukum bersifat preskriptif, artinya meresepkan, menganjurkan atau menyogiayakan sesuatu untuk dilakukan/tidak dilakukan. Singkatnya, ilmu hukum bertujuan untuk menilai sesuatu. Hal itu berbeda dengan ilmu sosial pada umumnya yang bersifat deskriptif, sekadar betugas menyajikan dan menggambarkan fakta-fakta yang terjadi di masyarakat. Idealnya, sebuah penelitian hukum yang baik diarahkan untuk mengkaji norma, asas, nilai, teori dan konsep hukum. Bukan mengkaji fakta-fakta sosial kemasyarakatan, sebagaimana yang berlaku dalam ilmu-ilmu sosial.