Legal Vacuum In The Supervision of Court Judgment Enforcement By Public Prosecutors And The Formulation of Ius Constituendum In Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55173/yurisdiksi.v22i4.414Keywords:
Legal Vacuum, Judicial Supervision, Execution of Criminal Court Judgments, Public Prosecutor, Ius constituendumAbstract
This study examines the legal vacuum in the judicial supervision of criminal court judgment enforcement by public prosecutors and the formulation of ius constituendum in Indonesia. The problem arises because Indonesian criminal procedural law grants public prosecutors authority to execute final and binding criminal judgments but does not provide a clear mechanism for judicial supervision when execution is delayed or not carried out. This study aims to identify the factors causing the legal vacuum and formulate an ideal model of judicial supervision as ius constituendum. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively through systematic and teleological interpretation. The analysis applies Gustav Radbruch’s Theory of Legal Certainty, Aristotle’s Theory of Justice, and the Theory of Judicial Power and checks and balances. The findings indicate that the legal vacuum results from the absence of judicial control mechanisms, limited authority of the Supervising and Observing Judge, the absence of an objection mechanism, and unclear time limits and legal accountability for public prosecutors. Comparative analysis of German criminal procedural law demonstrates the importance of judicial control during execution. Accordingly, this study proposes reformulating Article 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code and expanding the authority of the Supervising and Observing Judge to supervise execution from the time a judgment becomes final until completion. This model aims to strengthen legal certainty, accountability, and judicial authority while maintaining the public prosecutor’s authority to execute criminal judgments.
References
Adji, O. S. (2007). Peradilan Bebas dan Contempt of Court. Jakarta: Diadit Media.
Andi, H. (2021). Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Edisi Ketiga, Sinar Grafika, .
Angrayni, F. H. (2019). Implementasi Perlindungan Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Menurut Sistem Ketatanegaraan di Indonesia. Riau Law Journal, 44–69.
Arianto, H. (2012). Peranan Hakim Dalam Upaya Penegakan Hukum Di Indonesia. Lex Jurnalica, 131–163.
Arief, B. N. (2011). Perbandingan Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Arimurti. (2023). Prosedur Pengajuan Judicial Review dan Jenis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Judicial Review. Jurnal Demokrasi dan Ketahanan Nasional, 98.
Asmaeny, I. d. (2013). Constitutional Complaint & Constitutional Question dalam Negara Hukum. Jakarta: Prenamedia Group.
Bastianon, S. d. (2019). Jurnal Surya Kencana Dua: Dinamika Masalah Hukum dan Keadilan. 900–920, Fungsi Investigatif Dalam Kebebasan Hakim Memutus Perkara Yang Didasarkan Pada Penerapan Hukum Pembuktian.
Bernd Heinrich, G. E. (2022). Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ). Heft 8, 445-452.
Budahu. (2024). Legal Standing Pemohon Terkait Pengajuan Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jakarta: Media Hukum.
Butarbutar, E. N. (2011). Kebebasan Hakim Perdata Dalam Penemuan Hukum Dan Antinomi Dalam Penerapannya. Mimbar Hukum, 1–236.
Djatmiati, P. M. (2021). Argumentasi Hukum. Yogyakarta: Edisi Ketiga Gadjah Mada University Press.
Hiariej, E. O. (2022). Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana. Yogyakarta: Edisi Revisi Cahaya Atma Pustaka.
Ibrahim, J. (2020). Teori dan Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Malang: Edisi Ketiga Bayumedia Publishing.
Lailiyah, K. (2022). Constitutional Complaint Sebagai Upaya Perlindungan Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara. Journal Legal Dialectics, 1–18.
Lintogareng, J. V. (2013). Analisa Keyakinan Hakim Dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Perkara Pidana Di Pengadilan. Lex Crimen, 24–35.
Maggalatung, A. S. (2014). Hubungan Antara Fakta Norma, Moral, Dan Doktrin Hukum Dalam Pertimbangan Putusan Hakim. Jurnal Cita Hukum, 185–192.
Makarao, A. S. (2021). Eksekusi Putusan Pidana dalam Sistem Peradilan Indonesia: Perspektif Kepastian Hukum. Jurnal Yudisial, Vol. 14, No. 1,, 89-108.
Mamudji, S. S. (2004). Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Marzuki, P. M. (2021). Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Edisi Revisi, Kencana.
Mukantardjo, R. S. (2022). Problematika Pelaksanaan Putusan Pidana dan Urgensi Pengawasan Yudisial terhadap Jaksa Penuntut Umum. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Vol. 11, No. 2, 245-262.
Muladi. (1995). Kapita Selekta Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Jurnal Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
Pangaribuan, L. M. (2002). Advokat dan Contempt of Court. Jakarta: Djambatan.
Rifai, A. (2021). Kepastian Hukum dalam Pelaksanaan Putusan Pengadilan: Analisis terhadap Kewenangan Jaksa Penuntut Umum . Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Vol. 10, No. 3, 412-430.
Sudarto. (2009). Hukum Pidana I. Semarang: Yayasan Sudarto.
Trenggono, H. (1990). Kebijaksanaan Hakim. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Umam, A. (2010). Penerapan Pidana Minimum Khusus. Varia Peradilan, 94.
Utsman, S. (2014). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Progressif. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Waluyo, A. H. (1989). Delik-Delik terhadap Penyelenggaraan Peradilan (Contempt of Court). Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Wantu, F. M. (2021). Perbandingan Hukum sebagai Metode dalam Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, Vol. 51, No. 2, 345-367.
Wiyanto, R. (2012). Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Bandung: Mandar Maju.
Zulkarnain. (2013). Praktik Peradilan Pidana. Malang: Setara Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bayu Aditya Nugroho, Nurini Aprilianda, Abdul Madjid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
