Res Judicata Pro Veritate Habetur dalam Perspektif Kepastian Hukum Terhadap Proses Praperadilan yang Memeriksa Materi Pokok Perkara

Ninin Armianti Natsir

doi:10.55606/birokrasi.v4i2.2542

Authors

Ninin Armianti Natsir Universitas Negeri Mulawarman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/birokrasi.v4i2.2542

Keywords:

Corruption, Court, Decision, Legal certainty, Pretrial

Abstract

This study aims to examine and analyze the pretrial examination mechanism, which also assesses the substance of the case, as reflected in Pretrial Decision Number 10/Pid.Pra/2020/PN.Lbo at the Limboto District Court. The method used in this study is normative legal research, applying a statute approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach. The analysis is conducted qualitatively through deductive reasoning, namely by explaining general legal provisions and then drawing more specific conclusions.The results indicate that Pretrial Decision Number 10/Pid.Pra/2020/PN.Lbo, specifically the ruling declaring the Petitioner's actions not a criminal act of corruption, is deemed inconsistent with the nature and scope of pretrial proceedings. This is because pretrial examinations are principally intended only to examine formal aspects with a brief examination process, and therefore should not include an assessment of the subject matter of the case. Furthermore, the lack of a legal remedy mechanism for the pretrial decision also raises issues of legal certainty. In fact, based on the principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur, every court decision must be considered correct, valid, and binding until there is a decision from a higher court that overturns the decision.

References

Azzahra, S. N. (2025). Analisis kepastian hukum dalam putusan tindak pidana korupsi. Jurnal Multidisiplin Dehasen. https://doi.org/10.37676/mude.v4i3.8533

Bahiej, A., & Rahman, A. (2019). Peranan yurisprudensi tetap dalam sistem peradilan Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan.

Harahap, M. Y. (2016). Pembahasan permasalahan dan penerapan KUHAP: Penyidikan dan penuntutan. Sinar Grafika.

Harahap, Y. (2002). Pembahasan penerapan permasalahan KUHAP. Sinar Grafika.

Hotta, A. (2025). Pemahaman terhadap asas kepastian hukum melalui konstruksi penalaran positivisme hukum. Jurnal Hukum Dinamika, 1(1), 23–28. https://jurnal.unived.ac.id/index.php/juhude/article/view/7733

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Marzuki, P. M. (2021). Perluasan objek praperadilan dan implikasinya terhadap sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 28(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol28.iss2.art4

Mertokusumo, S. (2018). Penemuan hukum. Liberty.

Riyanto, T. A. (2021). Fungsionalisasi prinsip dominus litis dalam penegakan hukum pidana di Indonesia. Lex Renaissance, 6(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol6.iss3.art4

Rosli, I. C. (2024). Judicial preclusion in international arbitration: Comparative analysis of UK, Australia, and Malaysia's practices. Jambe Law Journal, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.22437/home.v7i2.385

Rumawi, R. (2024). The ratio decidendi of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia from the perspective of legal positivism. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.301

Saragih, H. W., & Siregar, A. R. M. (2024). Legal certainty in the legislative system in Indonesia. International Journal of Society and Law. https://doi.org/10.61306/ijsl.v2i3.433

Setiawan, P. J., Nugrah, X., & Taufiqurrohman, M. M. (2020). Penggunaan daluwarsa sebagai dasar permohonan praperadilan di Indonesia: Antara formil atau materiil. Volksgeist, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.24090/volksgeist.v3i2.4125

Situmorang, C. I., & Triadi, I. (2024). Reformasi kekuasaan kehakiman di Indonesia: Meningkatkan independensi, transparansi, dan kualitas. Journal Customary Law, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.47134/jcl.v1i2.2429

Subekti, R. (2019). Hukum acara perdata. PT Intermasa.

Sudjito. (2015). Konstruksi pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam sistem peradilan Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol22.iss1.art1

Sunstein, C. R. (2011). Behavioral law and economics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974095

Susilo, E., Din, M., Suhaimi, & Mansur, T. M. (2024). Justice delayed, justice denied: A critical examination of repeated suspect status in Indonesia. Hasanuddin Law Review, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v10i3.6088

Sutrsino, A. (2025). Peran hakim dalam mewujudkan due process of law pada sistem peradilan tata usaha negara di Indonesia. Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum, 5(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.56128/jkih.v5i1.434

Widarto, J. (2016). Penerapan asas putusan hakim harus dianggap benar (Studi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/PUU-XI/2013). Lex Jurnalica, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.47007/lj.v13i1.1325

Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana, Pasal 1 angka 10 (1981).

Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana, Pasal 77 (1981).