LEMBAGA DEPONERING SEBAGAI IMPLEMENTASI ASAS OPORTUNITAS PERKARA PIDANA DI INDONESIA
Main Article Content
Abstract
Deponering or exclusion of a criminal case for the sake of interest is the authority of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 35 sub c of Law No. 16 of 2004 concerning the Basic Provisions of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, as well as their explanations. Leaving aside the case as referred to in this provision is the implementation of the principle of opportunity in which a case (criminal act) when it is submitted to a trial is expected to cause a shock in the community or by trial the case will have a negative effect on the wider community, as happened in the case of Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah that occurred in 2009 until 2011. The problem studied was about the position of deponering institutions as the implementation of the principle of opportunity by the Attorney General and what were the reasons for the Attorney General to decide on deponering of Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah cases? This research is supported by primary data secondary data in the form of interviews with the parties in the Center for Research and Development of the Attorney General's Law. From the results of research and analysis obtained that the existence of deponering institutions as the implementation of the principle of opportunity by the Attorney General is a prosecution must be done if formal requirements have been met and must also be deemed necessary in the public interest, so that the prosecutor will not demand a case before the elements of public interest has been fulfilled. And the reason the Attorney General decided to deponering the Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah case was based on the consideration that if the case in the name of the suspects Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah was transferred to the court, it would have the effect of disturbing the performance of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). as well as managerial in carrying out their duties and authorities, so as to prejudice the public interest, namely the interests of the nation, state or society and also in order to protect efforts to eradicate corruption as a whole.
Downloads
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hak cipta :
Penulis yang mempublikasikan manuskripnya di jurnal ini menyetujui ketentuan berikut:
- Hak cipta pada setiap artikel adalah milik penulis.
- Penulis mengakui bahwa UNES Law Review berhak menjadi yang pertama menerbitkan dengan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0) .
- Penulis dapat mengirimkan artikel secara terpisah, mengatur distribusi non-eksklusif manuskrip yang telah diterbitkan dalam jurnal ini ke versi lain (misalnya, dikirim ke repositori institusi penulis, publikasi ke dalam buku, dll.), dengan mengakui bahwa manuskrip telah diterbitkan pertama kali di Jurnal UNES Law Review.
References
Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1946 Tentang Peraturan Hukum Pidana (KUHP)
Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. (KUHAP)
Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 58 Tahun 2010 Tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 27 Tahun 1983 Tentang Pelaksanaan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.