The revision of the Criminal Procedure Act is indeed very urgent

Jakarta – The development of law is not only based on formal logical considerations, but is rather influenced by the experience of the practice of working in the community. This is in line with Oliver Wendell Holmes’ expression, “the life that the law was not logical but it was experienced”. The experiential factor in the application of the law in the community is related to the legal culture. Lawrence Friedman makes legal culture (legal culture) as part of the legal system, in addition to the legal structure (legal structure) and legal material (legal substance). The theory of the legal system remains so far and is still a reference. Regarding the Procedure of the Criminal Code that is now optimized by Commission III in the DPR, the revision of formal criminal law is indeed appropriate. Almost half a century we used the Criminal Procedure Code, but there are many serious problems, such as the practice of intimidation in the process of inquiry, investigating the legal process. In addition, discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers is also frequent, and even the practice of ‘criminalization’. Therefore, the proposal of the Legislative Institutional Initiative in the Criminal Procedure Act is regarded as relevant to be carried out with an urgency, referring to the interests of legal protection for suspects and defendants. In fact, formal criminal law is not only meant to ensure culprits and therefore subject to punishment, but also to protect innocent people from the threat of punishment. It’s like the argument that says “It is better to free a thousand guilty people than to punish someone who is innocent”. On the other hand, it must also be able to optimize the integrated criminal justice system (integrated criminal justice system). Procedural justice and material justice must be explained in every level of legal process. The two justice is a pillar for legal certainty. It cannot be said that there is legal certainty if there is no procedural justice and material justice. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Bill emphasizes the implementation of the application of criminal law in clear and firm parameter. The role of control is also an important part of the Criminal Procedure Act. Browse to continue with the content as we know, there is a point between investigation and investigation with prosecution, where the relationship cannot be separated. At the stages of the investigation, there is sometimes engineering to fulfill the evidence and thereby complying with the elements of the adjusted offense. Such problems were expected in the Criminal Procedure Bill. If the rights of the suspect are very minimalist all this time, the Criminal Procedure Law Bill has been arranged by the clearly detailed rights. These rights include getting advocates help from the beginning of the exam. Here, an examination record contains for the benefit of openness (transparency), and also the right to access the inspection files. With this rule, the investigation process is to make the light of the criminal case and the compliance with the elements of criminal acts suspected can be assessed since the first phase. The assessment certainly is related to a minimum requirement of two valid evidence. Thus, there is a manufactured action against evidence of letters, evidence and expert statements. At this stage, the role of advocates also becomes more active, except to see and listen, can also explain and express objections. The Criminal Procedure Act also gives the right to proponents to submit objections to the detention of the suspect who is his client, in addition to a preliminary application. In the Criminal Procedure Bill, the bill also regulated the existence of the transition of the status of the suspect to become a ‘crown witness’ to expose the involvement of other actors. Crown witnesses in the criminal context are a suspect or defendant who is witness in the same case. This witness is often used in the crime of participation (participation). The certainty of the position of the crown witness is very important and strategic to expose the inclusion of participation, which is indeed very difficult in proof of it. In specialist offenses such as corruption and money laundering, it is also not easy to determine who the perpetrator is, and asks to do (make -up), participate (co -eleger) and a climb (provoker). Not to mention the meeting with the will of the will in the summit of the Double Opsing (Double Ops) and the Evil Agreement (Dolus Premditus) in the participation. Thus, the role of the Crown witness in the unveiling of such criminal acts is needed. Furthermore, it deals with the retained measures that tend to be based on subjective assessments only abused. This is said so because the subjective reasons for the escape of the Criminal Procedure Code are determined by the assessment which is also subjective. There is no clear parameter in the Criminal Procedure Code Bill. These provisions are contained in section 93 paragraph (5), namely with certain conditions such as: Ignore the calls of investigators 2 (two) times in a row without legal reasons; do not provide information according to facts at the time of the exam; do not work together on inspection; inhibits the inspection process; and witnesses influenced not to say the actual incident. Furthermore, the Criminal Procedure Code is in line with the designation, and its existence is designed to ensure the operation of a material criminal law that was legal, justice and to enable benefits. The role of the law at the end is thus the benefits of the interests of the law itself. The interests of the law referred to are the interests of state law (state interest), the interests of society (social bells) and the interests of individual law (individual interests). In this regard, the Bill of Criminal Procedure Act housed the proposed legal interest, especially for the interests of individual law in terms of establishing matters by restoring peace. The settlement of criminal cases based on restorative justice (restorative justice) is seen as the guarantee of the benefits of the interests of the law itself. It is definitely a novelty that did not exist before. In practice, however, this was done especially and mostly at the level of inquiry. It is even regulated in various laws and regulations, as in the prosecutor’s office number 15 of 2020 regarding the termination of prosecution on the basis of restorative justice, the guidelines of prosecutors number 1 of 2021 regarding access to justice for women and children in dealing with criminal cases, and 2021 guidelines regarding the termination of the Narcotics Litis. Police also regulated it, namely by the police ordinance no. 8 of 2021 regarding the handling of actions based on restorative justice. The Supreme Court is also the case, there was a Supreme Court Regulation number 1 of 2024 on guidelines for prosecution of criminal cases based on restorative justice. With the presence of new procedural law, the regulation of restorative justice is no longer partially regulated in the regulations of each law enforcement agency at every level of criminal law. The presence of case solution with the restoration as the basis of restorative justice is in accordance with the principle of Ultimum Remedium. The use of criminal sanctions should be a ‘last step’ (last resort). In this regard, it is important to know that the new criminal code complies with a dualistic doctrine, where between actions (actus giant) and errors (people) are no longer combined as monistic teachings, but are firmly separated. With peace through restorative justice in the new Criminal Procedure Act, the peace eliminates the mistake as a subjective element. Actions do exist, but with peace through restorative justice, the perpetrators cannot be asked for criminal liability. It is said that the people as the basis for criminal responsibility no longer exist with the settlement based on restorative justice. Furthermore, the authors related to the proposal of the provisional inspector judge (HPP) must transfer. The concept of HPP was established in the Criminal Procedure Code Bill in 2012, and was intended to replace the forerunner. According to the author, the existence of HPP in an integrated criminal justice system is questionable. This is said so because it will cause legal uncertainty. For example, to determine whether determining the status of the suspect and the conduct of the investigator, such as detention, seizure, and so on, if it is to be determined by the HPP, it is contrary to the principle of functional distinction in the execution of functions and authorities. On the other hand, the paradigm of carrying out the elements of offense differs by investigators of the evidence paradigm that the judge carried out during the trial process. Therefore, the existence of the HPP in the integrated criminal justice system is contrary to the axiology of our laws, namely ‘fair legal certainty’. The presence of HPP with this authority is to provide unbelieving authority. In fact, every agency in the legal structure was distinguished and each included their own function and authority. The principle of functional distinction is basically distinguished and not in jeopardy, especially one of them (in Casu HPP) can deny the functions and authority of other institutions (in casu investigators). The HPP that is entered the HPP technically in the Criminal Procedures Bill cannot be applied. In addition to the proposal referred to only the problem, but it will also cause new problems. In assessing the status of the suspect and detention, this is not the problem of who is most entitled to determine, but the clarity and tightening of the requirements become the most important thing. Here it is not seen by the law enforcement actor, but the system and mechanism in their respective law enforcement institutions. What is more, as we know, that some judges have been arrested, such as three judges in the case of oil corruption, in the Ronald Tannur case and that four judges have recently been arrested in the CPO export case. Such conditions show that such bribery strengthens the judge. In addition to the issue of the availability of judges who are not proportional to the reach and level of crime, the condition of capturing the judges will in fact weaken public trust if the HPP is incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Act with the authority officials and authority of the investigation. If HPP goes to the upstream of law enforcement with the authority to assess the function and authority of the investigation, then it is “compare something else”. Acts of equation of something else are unfair and at the same time not true. It must be emphasized that legal renewal that does not correspond to the principle/principle of the right will bear a norm conflict (antinomy), the impact of which is much greater than the application of the law due to an understanding of a multi -interpreted legal text. The past that takes place is also greater than the benefit to be obtained, if the HPP is accepted in the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, we should look at the statement in the rules of Fiqh, “Dar’ul Mafasid Muqaddamun ‘Ala Jalbil Mashalit”, that the prevention of Mudharat is better than getting mashlahat. There are many more that the author wants to convey, but at least the urgency of the Criminal Procedures Bill, as described, can give an understanding of their relevance to the current conditions. From what was mentioned above, the criminal procedure code arising from the current DPR initiative rights must be appreciated. So and hopefully useful. Abdul chairman Ramadhan. Chairman of the Indonesian Legal Plad Agreement Doctoral Association (Pedphi). Watch the video: DPR first delays the Criminal Procedure Code Bill: The session period is only 25 working days (TAA/TAA) HOEGENG Awards 2025 Read the inspiring story of the exemplary police candidate here