The Limits of Police Investigators Discretion in Determining Suspects A Due Process of Law Perspective in the New Criminal Code

Penulis

  • Muhammad Nizam Taftazani Faculty of Law, Pasundan University, Indonesia
  • Maman Budiman Faculty of Law, Pasundan University, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33751/palar.v12i3.189

Abstrak

The determination of suspects as part of a forced effort in Law Number 20 of 2025 demands stricter restrictions on the scope of investigators' assessments, especially after the expansion of the type of evidence and the absence of judicial control before the determination is made. This study aims to analyze the limits of police investigators' discretion in determining suspects, the implications of expanding evidence, and the adequacy of pretrial as a protection mechanism based on the principle of due process of law. The research uses normative legal methods that are descriptive-analytical and prescriptive, with legislative and conceptual approaches. Legal materials are collected through literature studies and document studies, then analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study show that the requirement of a minimum of two pieces of evidence is not enough to be assessed based on the number, but must include the validity of the acquisition, authenticity, reliability, relevance, suitability between evidence, and the relationship of evidence with the crime and the person determined. The discretion of the investigator is not a free authority, but is limited by legality, purpose of investigation, procedure, presumption of innocence, proportionality, reasonable, and effective supervision. Pretrial remains important as judicial control after the determination of the suspect, but the examination needs to include the validity and relevance of the evidence without entering into a misdemeanor.

 

Keywords: Investigator Discretion, Suspect Determination, Due Process of Law, Pretrial.

Referensi

Referensi

A. Laws and Regulations

Indonesia. Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (1945).

———. Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia (2002).

———. Law Number 5 of 2026 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia (2026).

———. Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Law (1981). www.djpp.kemenkumham.go.id.

———. Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) (2025)

B. Journal

Effendi, Erdianto. "The Relevance of Examination of Prospective Suspects Before Determination of Suspects." Law: Journal of Law 3, no. 2 (December 1, 2020): 267–88. doi:10.22437/ujh.3.2.267-288.

Setiyono. "Testing of sufficient preliminary evidence in the determination of suspects through pretrial institutions." Lex Jurnalica 21, no. 2 (August 2024).

C. Books

Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Introduction to Constitutional Law. Jakarta: Secretariat General and Clerk of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, 2006. www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id.

Budiman, Maman. Indonesia's Criminal Justice System: Concepts and Efforts to Combat Crime. Malang: Setara Press, 2021.

Burke, Roger Hopkins. An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Willan Publishing, 2009.

Muhaimin. Legal Research Methods. Mataram: Mataram University Press, 2020.

Situmeang, Sahat Maruli Tua. Detention of Suspects: Discretion in the Criminal Justice Process. Bandung: Logoz Publishing, 2017.

Suyanto, H. Criminal Procedure Law. Zifatama Jawara, 2018.

D. Others

detiknews. "The order of the suspect's Febrie: Determined by the Tipikor Court, overflowed to the Attorney General' s Office."Detiknews, July 11, 2026.

Chief of the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia. Regulation of the Chief of Police Number 6 of 2019 concerning Criminal Investigation (2019).

———. Police Regulation Number 7 of 2022 concerning the Professional Code of Ethics and the Commission of the Code of Ethics of the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia (2022).

Constitutional Court. Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 (2014).

———. Constitutional Court Decision Number 111/PUU-XXIV/2026 (2026).

South Jakarta District Court. Decision Number 99/Pid.Pra/2026/PN JKT. SEL (2026).

PN Kupang. Decision Number 1/Pid.Pra/2026/PN Kpg (2026).

Diterbitkan

2026-07-30

Cara Mengutip

Muhammad Nizam Taftazani, & Maman Budiman. (2026). The Limits of Police Investigators Discretion in Determining Suspects A Due Process of Law Perspective in the New Criminal Code. PALAR | PAKUAN LAW REVIEW, 12(3), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.33751/palar.v12i3.189