PRAPERADILAN DAN PENERAPANNYA DI WILAYAH HUKUM PN. SEMARANG DAN PN.PATI

Abstract

Praperadilan adalah wewenang peradilan negri untuk memeriksa dan memutus mengenai : a. sah atau tidaknya puctu perningkapan dan at meneeepnen etan mintaer imirsangka atau keluerganya atau pihak laim hip tersangkL; b. sah atau tidaknial penghentian ponyidiksin atau perighent me annum tutan atas permintaan demi. tegaknya hokum don keaellen: c. permintaan ganti kerugian atau rehabilitasi nick tersamgha neau keluarganya atau pihak lain atas kuasanya yang perkneanya tidal.: diajukan ke peradilan. Lembaga praperadilan ini merupakan sarana kone.iol seders. ho¬risontal dalam sistem peradilan pidena, karena melal.ui lembaga ini hakim dapat mengawasi don menilai tindakan-tindakan yang dilakukan oleh penyidik serta jaksa penuntut umum terutama di dalam melakukan upaya-upaya paksa. Lembaga praperadilan ini depot digunakan Glob tersangka atau terdak•a atau keivarganye atau kuasanya serta pihak hatiga yang ber-kepentingan di dalam usahanya untuk mendepatkan keeMilan. Namun da¬lam kenyataannyo lembaga ini jarang sekali dilaksanokan/nipergune¬kan. Sebagai contoh adalah yang terjedi pada Pengadiian rigeri Sema¬rang' dan Pengadilen Negeri Pot!. Semenjak berlakunyo Undarg-Undang No,8 Tahun 1981 atau Kitab Undang-undaag flukum Acorn Pidana sampai dengan sekarang (tat= 1994) hanya terjadi 16 (enam bakes) kasus permohonan praperadilan di. Pengadilan Negeri Semarang don bahkan belum pernsh ada kasus permohonan preperadilan di Pengadilan Negeri Teti. Adapun kendelnekandala at' hambatanehe at yang times dm Adapun kendala-kendala atau hambatan-hambatan yang timbul dalam pelaksanaan praperadilan adalah sebagai berikut : 1. ;Mk adanya bleya untuk melakukan perminsgilan ken o para steak yang bersangketa (pershon praperodilan den tarmohoe proper. 2. Tidak adonya biaya perkara yang ddkenakan kbpodo norshon de_ hat parmohonan ditolak atau kcpada termohon deaom hal ran:lobar= L'_-m. bulken. 3. geraturad perrndang-undangen yang mengator ) e aroporaallen bolum begito lengkep, misalnya tide% 6 huhum terbadau putusan praperoddlan ( honya add perm ohoPen bardirg dal em tr»an menaterken tidefs sahnya penhMontdon peny.61kan F. von tier mountuton). 4, Masysrakat eve .A poncari ::eoadilsn tidak atau kuxoaf fungai lehbaga praperadilon. , Kurangnya kesadarmon hukum deri masydrakat, ) 6, Pemeriksaan terhsdap parmohonon prapprodilan nulai d.; olds pertama sampai denger dijatuhkonnya putusan borlangsung deng menggunakan acara pemeriksaan cepat, yoitu selambat-iambotnye tu¬juh hnri putusan harus sudah dijatubkan. Mangan adonya kotentuon .ini terkadang jaiannya pemeriksaan menjodi serba tergesa-gesa oe¬hinggs terkadang kurang mencerhinkan rasa keel:Dian, Pretrial was authority of preliminary court to axadin decide about a. legal or illegal about arrested or detention on rquest; by the suspect or his family or another person was authorized by tbd suverct; b. leqal or illczal about dismissed invest'. di ad pro secution on request for the upright of lad, and just1aa, c. on request for compensdtion or rehabilitation by the sudavdct or his family or another person for bim whose the case vas not con tinued to the coat, This institution of pretrial ,:!En control irsCrude on the horizontal method in Criminal Justice System, becarda the jud; passed this institution was able to control sadd value 1jr? acts of public prosecutor and police officer (investigatinz body), in the a was the acts of compulsion measurement. Pretrial institution was able to use by . the suspect or the accused cr their families or person toes authorized by them and the persons interested on their cares for search the justice. In spite of this pretrial institution in practice werw happened only spora¬dic. For example, it was happened in Preliminary Court of Semarang and Preliminary Court of Pat!. Since Act Number 8, iC81 or Code of Criminal Law Procedure of Indonesia (KUHAP) was have been practi cing until this time (1994), it was happened only sixteen cases pretrial request on Preliminary Court of Semarang and zero case pretrial request on Preliminary Court of Pati. The obstacles or problems that happened in pretrial accom plishment as follows : 1. There's no cost for Court's calling to the ports that they fo ught for each other (pretrial requester and pretrial. 1 2. There's no cost for council to impose for requester in refused of pretrial request or for requested in acceptanced of -retrial request. 3. The arrangement of laws was not rule about this problem in com-plicated, example : there's no law measurement struggle for pre-trial decision (only appeal ogainst pretrial decision on dismis¬sed investigation or dismissed prosecution cases). 4. The public who search the justice have not been !:nowi.ng or un-derstanding this pretrial institution function, 5. The less of legal consciousness frch the people, 6. The eaminstion for pretrial request started from the first co¬uncil until decision was fallen, it was taken the place with fast examination process, in seven days decision must be fallen. 10th this order sometimes the examinat:an went on way becone o fully procnitate, so that solootimes it 1eri0 to re:Clocked the sense of justice.