Establishing Time Limits for Investigations Based on Legal Certainty Values
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v6i2.2662Keywords:
reformulation, investigation, time limit, legal certainty, criminal procedure lawAbstract
This article examines the reformulation of the investigation time limit regulation based on the value of legal certainty in the Indonesian criminal law system. The provisions in the current Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) do not regulate the investigation time limit, thus creating legal uncertainty, weak oversight, and the potential for abuse of authority by law enforcement officers. This study uses a normative juridical approach with descriptive analysis to find the ideal concept for reforming criminal procedure law. The results show that the unclear investigation time limit contradicts the principle of due process of law and the principle of speedy, simple, and low-cost justice. Therefore, a reformulation of the KUHAP is needed by adding provisions regarding the maximum 30-day investigation period, reasons for termination of investigation, and internal and external oversight mechanisms. This reformulation is expected to ensure legal certainty, prevent abuse of authority, and strengthen human rights protection in the criminal justice process in Indonesia.
References
Abadinsky, H. (1984). Discreotinary Justice, an Introduction to Discretion in Criminal Justice. Charles Thomas Publisher.
Arief, B. N. (2014). Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana - Perkembangan Penyusunan Konsep KUHP Baru. Kencana.
The French Criminal Law, 11 (2001).
Hall, D. E. (2009). Criminal Law and Procedure (Fifth Edit). Maxwell.
Hodgson, J. (2002). Constructing the Pre-Trial Role of the Defence in French Criminal Procedure: An Adversarial Outsider in an Inquisitorial Process? International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 6(1), 1–16.
Kemat dan Devid Akhirnya Juga Bebas. (2008). Kompas.Com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2008/12/03/18543871/kemat-dan-devid-akhirnya-juga-bebas
Muladi, & Sulistyani, D. (2016). Kompleksitas Perkembangan Tindak Pidana dan Kebijakan Kriminal. Alumni.
Packer, H. L. (1986). The Limits of The Criminal Sanction,. Stanford University Press.
Pangaribuan, L. M. P. (2009). Lay Judges & Hakim Ad Hoc, Suatu Studi Teoritis Mengenai Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia. FHUI dan Papas Sinar Sinanti.
Scheffer, T., Hannken-Illjes, K., & Kozin, A. (2010). Criminal Defence and Procedure Comparative Ethnographies in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sulistiowati, & Ismail, N. (2018). Penormaan Asas-Asas Hukum Pancasila (Dalam Kegiatan Usaha Koperasi dan Perseroan Terbatas). Gadjah Mada University Press.
Tak, P. J. P. (2008). The Dutch Criminal Justice System. Wolf Legal Publishers.
Weston, P. B., & Weus, K. M. (1973). The Administration of Justice. New Jersey Printice Hau.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Adrian Richkiel Hastika, Rahmida Erliyani, Suprapto Suprapto, Mulyani Zulaeha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish their manuscripts in this journal agree to the following conditions:
- The copyright on each article belongs to the author(s).
- The author acknowledges that the Journal of Law, Poliitic and Humanities (JLPH) has the right to be the first to publish with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Authors can submit articles separately, arrange for the non-exclusive distribution of manuscripts that have been published in this journal into other versions (e.g., sent to the author's institutional repository, publication into books, etc.), by acknowledging that the manuscript has been published for the first time in the Journal of Law, Poliitic and Humanities (JLPH).
