Article Sidebar

Submitted
Jul 28, 2024
Accepted
Nov 30, 2024
Published
Dec 2, 2024
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 54 Download : 32

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The authority of the Attorney General to provide assistance in criminal cases or to exercise deponering is a form of discretionary power regulated under Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia. This authority underwent a significant procedural shift following the Constitutional Court Decision Number 29/PUU-XIV/2016. The decision addressed issues with Article 35(c), particularly the phrase requiring the Attorney General to consider the advice and opinions of state power bodies when evaluating the public interest. This study employs normative legal methods with conceptual, statute, case, and comparative approaches. Both primary and secondary legal texts are used. One important thing that makes this study stand out is that it looks closely at the Constitutional Court's decision. This decision is a turning point for making the deferring power process more fair and clear. Unlike other studies, this one focuses on how the decision combines the Attorney General's freedom of choice with ways to stop abuse by making the government more accountable and open. The findings reveal that the Constitutional Court's decision establishes that the advice of state power bodies is not binding but must still be objectively considered by the Attorney General. The decision underscores the importance of transparency in exercising deponering authority, emphasizing the need to base decisions on the public interest. As a result of this ruling, the mechanism for implementing deponering has become more structured and transparent, reducing the risk of abuse of authority by the Attorney General. This study concludes that the Constitutional Court's decision has positively influenced the regulation of criminal law regarding deponering authority in Indonesia and sets a new precedent for the discretionary powers of law enforcement officials.

Keywords

Authority Constitutional Court's Deponering Power of Law

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Wulandari , N. K. J., & Sadnyini, I. A. (2024). Juridical Analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 29/PUU-XIV/2016 About the Attorney General’s Authority to Allow Deponering in Indonesia. Al-Qadha : Jurnal Hukum Islam Dan Perundang-Undangan, 11(2), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.32505/qadha.v11i2.9198

References

  1. Amir, Rezeky Setyawan, Kamri Ahmad, and Hamza Baharuddin. “Penghapusan Pidana Demi Kepentingan Umum Dan Membela Diri Pada Kasus Penghinaan Di Media Sosial.” Journal of Lex Generalis (JLG) 2, no. 3 (March 31, 2021): 1501–15.
  2. Ariska, Alvena Wafa, and Surbakti Natangsa. “Pendelegasian Wewenang Deponering Oleh Jaksa Agung Kepada Jaksa Penuntut Umum.” Thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 2022.
  3. Artyo, Yovereld Alexetty, Novita Aristyana, and Aline Philia Antana Sinaga. “Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 6/PUU-XXII/2024 Mengenai Syarat Jabatan Jaksa Agung Terhadap Independensi Kejaksaan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana.” JATISWARA 39, no. 2 (July 30, 2024): 185–200.
  4. Chalil, Sri Mulyati. “Pengesampingan Perkara (Deponering) Oleh Jaksa Agung.” Wacana Paramarta: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 15, no. 1 (May 30, 2016): 1–10.
  5. Dwi Rafiqi, Ilham. “Tafsir Wewenang Seponering Jaksa Agung Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 29/PUU-XIV/2016.” Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum 4, no. 2 (2021): 307–22.
  6. Hasonangan, Romula, Hari Purwadi, and Andina Elok Puri Maharani. “The Effects of the Opportunity Principle on the Attorney General’s Office’s Deponerring Implementation.” Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi Dan Kajian Hukum 20, no. 2 (December 30, 2021). https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v20i2.1723.
  7. Hasrina, Sri, Said Karim, and Hijrah Adiyanti Mirzana. “Konsep Kepentingan Umum Dalam Asas Oportunitas Pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia.” Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law 3, no. 1 (July 13, 2021): 33–39.
  8. Husaini, Husin, and Muhammad Afdhal Askar. “Kedudukan Kejaksaan Dan Pengisian Jabatan Jaksa Agung Dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan Indonesia.” Bertuah Jurnal Syariah Dan Ekonomi Islam 1, no. 2 (December 15, 2022): 160–71. https://doi.org/10.56633/jsie.v1i2.167.
  9. Lathfan, Lathfan Lathfan. “Implikasi Hukum Pengaturan Kepentingan Umum Sebagai Syarat Penggunaan Deponering Oleh Jaksa Agung Menurut Hukum Positif Indonesia.” Dinamika 26, no. 14 (August 10, 2020): 1712–25.
  10. Lubis, Muhammad Kenan, Gunarto Gunarto, and Anis Mashdurohatun. “Legal Reconstruction of the Authority of Deponering Implementation by the Prosecution Office Based on Justice Value.” Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 6, no. 03 (March 27, 2023): 171–76. https://doi.org/10.36348/sijlcj.2023.v06i03.006.
  11. M.a.s, Windi Jannati, and Frans Simangunsong. “Makna Kepentingan Umum Didalam Deponering.” Bureaucracy Journal : Indonesia Journal of Law and Social-Political Governance 2, no. 2 (August 30, 2022): 235–45. https://doi.org/10.53363/bureau.v2i2.32.
  12. Mustriadhi, Aris. “Ratio Legis Tidak Adanya Pengaturan Upaya Hukum Dari Deponering Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Jaksa Agung.” Yurispruden: Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Malang 3, no. 1 (January 31, 2020): 78–92. https://doi.org/10.33474/yur.v3i1.4966.
  13. Prabowo, Valentino Nathanael, Tjondro Tirtamulia, and Hesti Armiwulan. “Independensi Kejaksaan Agung Republik Indonesia.” CALYPTRA 12, no. 2 (August 26, 2024): 1–9.
  14. Putri, Rianda Prima, and Suryaningsih Suryaningsih. “Kedudukan Hukum Deponering Oleh Jaksa Agung Dalam Pemberhentian Perkara Tindak Pidana di Indonesia.” Ensiklopedia of Journal 5, no. 2 (January 3, 2023): 148–55. https://doi.org/10.33559/eoj.v5i2.1148.
  15. Ratnasari, Desi, Sahuri Lasmadi, and Elly Sudarti. “Kedudukan Hukum Deponeering Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana.” PAMPAS: Journal of Criminal Law 2, no. 1 (April 26, 2021): 17–29. https://doi.org/10.22437/pampas.v2i1.12053.
  16. Sitompul, Rina Melati, and Juniarti Canceria Pasaribu. “The Position of the Principle of Legality vs the Principle of Opportunity in the Accemination of the Prosecutor’s Demands in the Replic Agenda (Valencya Case Study at the Karawang State Attorney).” Mahadi: Indonesia Journal of Law 3, no. 01 (February 28, 2024): 79–85. https://doi.org/10.32734/mah.v3i01.15454.
  17. Sulaiman, Sulaiman. “Paradigma dalam Penelitian Hukum.” Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 20, no. 2 (August 18, 2018): 255–72. https://doi.org/10.24815/kanun.v20i2.10076.
  18. Syaifudin, Lalu. “Confiscation Of Assets In Corruption Cases Without Court Decision Through Implementation Of Deponering (Case Set-Aside) (A Study In Legal Philosophy Stream).” Proceedings of Malikussaleh International Conference on Law, Legal Studies and Social Science (MICoLLS) 3 (December 30, 2023): 0023–0023. https://doi.org/10.29103/micolls.v3i-.431.
  19. Tambuwun, Bryan. “Upaya Hukum Terhadap Deponering Dalam Perspektif Hukum Progresif.” LEX CRIMEN 4, no. 2 (April 30, 2015): 191–98.
  20. Triwati, Ani. “Pengesampingan Perkara Demi Kepentingan Umum Pascaputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Ius Constituendum 6, no. 1 (December 29, 2020): 32–54. https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v6i1.2092.
  21. Widiana, I. Gusti Agung Ngurah Satya, Anak Agung Sagung Laksmi Dewi, and I. Made Minggu Widyantara. “Wewenang Jaksa Agung dalam Penyampingan Perkara (Deponering) dalam Proses Peradilan Pidana.” Jurnal Analogi Hukum 4, no. 1 (May 20, 2022): 60–65. https://doi.org/10.22225/ah.4.1.2022.60-65.
  22. Yudha, Gema. “Lembaga Deponering Sebagai Implementasi Asas Oportunitas Perkara Pidana di Indonesia.” UNES Law Review 2, no. 3 (July 1, 2020): 331–45. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v2i3.126.
  23. Yuherawan, Deni Setya Bagus, Fanny Tanuwijaya, Subaidah Ratna Juita, and Joice Soraya. “Building a New Concept of the Purpose of Law: A Preliminary Effort.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Law, Governance, and Social Justice (ICoLGaS 2023), 1224–36. Atlantis Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-164-7_112.