ARGUMENTASI HAKIM PENGADILAN TINGGI MENERIMA PENGAJUAN PERLAWANAN PENUNTUT UMUM TERHADAP SURAT DAKWAAN TIDAK DAPAT DITERIMA OLEH HAKIM DALAM PERKARA KORUPSI (Studi Putusan Nomor: 12/Pid.Sus/2012/ PT.TPK.Smg)

ARFIANTO, BAYU (2015) ARGUMENTASI HAKIM PENGADILAN TINGGI MENERIMA PENGAJUAN PERLAWANAN PENUNTUT UMUM TERHADAP SURAT DAKWAAN TIDAK DAPAT DITERIMA OLEH HAKIM DALAM PERKARA KORUPSI (Studi Putusan Nomor: 12/Pid.Sus/2012/ PT.TPK.Smg). Other thesis, Universitas Sebelas Maret.

[img]
Preview
PDF
Download (968Kb) | Preview

    Abstract

    ABSTRACT Bayu Arfianto. 2015. E0011053. THE ARGUMENTATION OF HIGH COURT’S JUDGE IN ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S RESISTANCE SUBMISSION AGAINST INDICTMENT UNACCEPTABLE TO THE JUDGE IN CORRUPTION CASE (A Study on Verdict Number: 12/Pid.Sus/2012/PT.TPK.Smg). Thesis. Faculty of Law of Surakarta Sebelas Maret University. This study aimed to find out the rationale of Public Prosecutor of Semarang District Attorney’s Resistance Submission against the Indictment Unacceptable to the Judge in Corruption Case, whether or not it had been consistent with the provision of KUHAP and to find out the argumentation of High Court’s Judge in Accepting the Public Prosecutor’s Resistance Submission against Indictment Unacceptable to the Judge in Corruption Case, whether or not it had been consistent with the provision of KUHAP. This study was a normative law research that was prescriptive and applied in nature with case approach. The law material source employed included primary and secondary ones with library study as the technique of collecting law material. Technique of analyzing law material used in this research was syllogism method with deductive thinking pattern. Considering the result of research, it could be concluded that the Public Prosecutor’s resistance submission based on Verdict stating that the indictment was unacceptable to the first level-Chamber of Judge should be decided with final judgement rather than interlocutory decision of judgement. The first level-Chamber of Judge had misapplied the procedural law by accepting the indictment’s exception in the second session with the agenda of examining the witness from Public Prosecutor. Thus, the argumentation of the Public Prosecutor’s Resistance Submission had been consistent with Article 156 of KUHAP, particularly clause (3). The argumentation of Provincial Court’s Judge had been consistent with the provision of Article 156 jo Article 241 of KUHAP. The Judges of High Court’s accepted the Public Prosecutor of Semarang District Attorney’s Resistance Submission because it had legal rationale. Keywords: Interlocutory Decision of Judgement, Resistance, Judges’ Rationale, Corruption Crime

    Item Type: Thesis (Other)
    Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
    Divisions: Fakultas Hukum
    Fakultas Hukum > Ilmu Hukum
    Depositing User: faizah sarah yasarah
    Date Deposited: 24 Dec 2015 18:54
    Last Modified: 24 Dec 2015 18:54
    URI: https://eprints.uns.ac.id/id/eprint/22572

    Actions (login required)

    View Item