REPOSITORY

Universitas Pembangunan Panca Budi
  1. Home
  2. Kekuatan Hukum Pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Pembentukan Norma Hukum Pidana Formil Kewenangan Lembaga Praperadilan (Studi terhadap Putusan Mahkamah KonstitusiMK Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 dan Putusan MK Nomor 109/PUU-XIII/2015)

Kekuatan Hukum Pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Pembentukan Norma Hukum Pidana Formil Kewenangan Lembaga Praperadilan (Studi terhadap Putusan Mahkamah KonstitusiMK Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 dan Putusan MK Nomor 109/PUU-XIII/2015)

BOB ANDIKA MAMANA SITEPU (2025)

penelitian-kekuatan-hukum-pertimbangan-hakim-mahkamah-konstitusi-terhadap-pembentukan-norma-hukum-pidana--formil-kewenangan-lembaga-praperadilan-studi-terhadap-putusan-mahkamah-konstitusimk-nomor-21puuxii2014-dan-putusan-mk-nomor-109puuxiii2015

Kekuatan Hukum Pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Pembentukan Norma Hukum Pidana Formil Kewenangan Lembaga Praperadilan (Studi terhadap Putusan Mahkamah KonstitusiMK Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 dan Putusan MK Nomor 109/PUU-XIII/2015)

Kekuatan Hukum Pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Pembentukan Norma Hukum Pidana Formil Kewenangan Lembaga Praperadilan (Studi terhadap Putusan Mahkamah KonstitusiMK Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 dan Putusan MK Nomor 109/PUU-XIII/2015), Legal Norms, Criminal Procedure Law, Constitutional Court Decisions...

Author: BOB ANDIKA MAMANA SITEPU
Date: 2025
Keywords: Legal Norms, Criminal Procedure Law, Constitutional Court Decisions
Type: Jurnal
Category: penelitian

The Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has been a cornerstone of Indonesia's criminal law system for 42 years under Law Number 8 of 1981, replacing the colonial-era Herziene Inlands Reglement. Over 25 years, technological advancements in communication and transportation significantly impacted social, economic, and legal aspects, including criminal law. This research represents normative legal research. The Constitutional Court (MK) decisions on legal considerations exhibit two perspectives. Some argue that MK's legal considerations aren't binding, per Ramlan Surbakti, serving as recommendations rather than obligations for legislators. Conversely, Maruarar Siahaan contends that these considerations carry binding force, forming the basis of judgments termed ratio decidendi. Constitutional Court rulings possess three legal powers: binding, evidentiary, and executory. Notable cases include tests on criminal procedural law norms such as 102/PUU-XIII/2015, 103/PUU-XIV/2016, 130/PUU-XIII/2015, 21/PUU-XII/2014, 33/PUU-XIV/2016, 65/PUU-VIII/2010, 65/PUU-IX/2011, 34/PUU-XI/2013. Additionally, other decision types exist: constitutional/unconstitutional with conditions, delays in decision enactment, and formulation of new norms. These rulings categorize as self-executing or non-self-executing..

Files:
Tidak ada data !

Collections:
Digital Library UNPAB