Comparison of the Habeas Corpus System in England and Indonesia: Its Authority and Regulation

Dedi Wardana Nasoetion; Hartoyo; Noenik Soekorini

doi:10.25139/lex journal.v9i2.10016

Dedi Wardana Nasoetion Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo, Indonesia
Hartoyo Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo, Indonesia
Noenik Soekorini Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo, Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.25139/lex%20journal.v9i2.10016

Abstract views: 15 ,

PDF downloads: 16

Keywords: Habeas Corpus, Comparative Law, England and Indonesia

Abstract

Pretrial here is seen to have been understood differently from the purpose or function of Habeas Corpus, which is to protect and safeguard the rights of citizens against abuse of authority of the authorities (in this case criminal law enforcers). This research aims to examine the authority of pre-trial according to the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code and compare the concept and regulation of Habeas Corpus in the English judicial system with pre-trial in Indonesia. The method used in this research is normative juridical, with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The results show that the authority of pretrial judges by the provisions in Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law is the validity or not of arrest, detention, termination of investigation or termination of prosecution; determination of suspects; seizure and search; and compensation and or rehabilitation for a person whose criminal case is stopped at the level of investigation or prosecution. The existence and presence of pretrial is not a separate institution. Pretrial is only a new authority and function delegated by KUHAP to each District Court (PN).

References

BOOK
Anggara et al, Naskah Akademik dan Rancangan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung tentang Hukum Acara Praperadilan (Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, 2014).
Anwar, Mochamad, Praperadilan (Jakarta: Ind-Hil-Co., 1989).
Friedman, Lawrence M, The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975).
Hamzah, Andi, Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Acara Pidana dan KUHAP (Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 1992).
Harahap, M Yahya, Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP: Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2002).
HS, Salim & Erlies Septiana Nurbani, Perbandingan Hukum Perdata: Comparative Civil Law (Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2015).
HS, Salim & Erlies Septiana Nursyahbani, Penerapan Teori Hukum pada Penelitian Tesis dan Disertasi (Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada, 2019).
Januar, Wahyu, Studi Komparasi Hukum Wewenang dan Fungsi Pra Peradilan menurut Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia dengan Sistem Habeas Corpus di Amerika Serikat Universitas Sebelas Maret, 2011) [unpublished].
Parikesit, Iqbal, Akibat Hukum Putusan Praperadilan yang Menyatakan Tidak Sahnya Penetapan Tersangka Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, 2022) [unpublished].
Prints, Darwan, Praperadilan dan Perkembagannya di dalam Praktek (Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 1993).
Wiryanto, Etik Hakim Konstitusi: Rekonstruksi dan Evolusi Sistem Pengawasan (Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2019).
Zulkarnain, Praktik Peradilan Pidana (Malang: Setara Press, 2013).

JOURNAL
Afandi, Fachrizal, “Perbandingan Praktik Praperadilan dan Pembentukan Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan dalam Peradilan Pidana Indonesia” (2016) 28:1 Mimb Huk 93–106, online: .
Agus, E, H Supardi, “Mewujudkan Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu Melalui Case Management System (Studi di Kejaksaan Negeri Kota Bogor)” (2021) 3:1 Suara Huk 9–10.
Fauzia, Ana, Fathul Hamdani & Deva Gama Rizky Octavia, “The Revitalization of the Indonesian Legal System in the Order of Realizing the Ideal State Law” (2021) 3:1 Progress Law Rev 12–25.
Marpaung, Ramsen & Tristam Pascal Moeliono, “Perbandingan Hukum antara Prinsip Habeas Corpus dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana Inggris dengan Praperadilan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia” (2021) 5:2 J Wawasan Yuridika 224–248, online: .
Priyatno, Dwidja & M Rendi Aridhayandi, “Resensi Buku (Book Review) Satjipto Rahardjo, Ilmu Hukum, Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya, 2014” (2018) 2:2 J Huk Mimb Justitia.
Rusianto, Agus, “Pengawasan Terhadap Kewenangan Penahanan Pada Tingkat Penyidikan Ditinjau dari Integrated Criminal Justice System” (2013) 17:334 J Varia Peradil 41.

REPORT
Inggris, Magistrates Courts Act tentang Kewenangan Hakim Magistrate, by Inggris.