Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0.947
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies Widya Yuridika Veteran Law Review Jurnal Suara Hukum
Deni Setya Bagus Yuherawan
Unknown Affiliation
Arts Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 5 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 5 Documents
Search

 1 
Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Cases Yuherawan, Deni Setya Bagus
JILS (Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies) Vol 5 No 1 (2020): Globalization, Law, and Crimes: The Various Aspects of Law in Broader Context
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (579.817 KB) | DOI: 10.15294/jils.v5i1.38575

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze the investigation authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) on the counteraction case of corruption justice process. The reason for the writing is the existence of different interpretation of the authority of the KPK Investigator to conduct an investigation on the counteraction case of justice process in Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Law junto Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of the Corruption (the Law of Corruption Act). The analysis method of the problem formulation applies Grammatical Interpretation, Systematic Interpretation, and Teleological Interpretation. The legislation analyzed, besides the Anti-Corruption Law, is the Decree of the People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia Number XI / MPR / 1998 concerning State Administrators that are clean and free of corruption, collusion, and nepotism; also Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission junto Law Number 10 of 2015 concerning the Establishment of Government Regulations in lieu of Law Number 1 of 2015 concerning Amendments to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission. The conclusion of this article is that the KPK Investigator is not authorized to conduct an investigation on the counteraction case of corruption justice process.
The Pretrial (Praperadilan) Filed By The Suspect With The Status Wanted List Of People (DPO) Yuherawan, Deni
Veteran Law Review Vol 3, No 2 (2020): November 2020
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/velrev.v3i2.2121

Abstract

The granting of a Pre-trial petition filed by a suspect whose status is a Wanted List of People (DPO) by the panel of judges is one of the actions deemed to deviate from the rule of law. SEMA Number 1 of 2018 concerning the Prohibition of Proposal for Pretrial by Escaping Suspects or with the status of DPO has confirmed that pretrial applications may not be filed by suspects who have fled or DPO in another sense submitted by legal counsel or their families. In this case, there is a legal problem, namely the conflict of norm values in a rule. So this article is written to analyze whether pretrial filings made by suspects with the status of a Wanted List or DPO can be justified or not. This research is normative legal research that uses a statutory approach (Statute Approach) and a conceptual approach (Conceptual Approach). For this reason, the data that the authors use is secondary data consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. Primary legal materials consist of legal products such as statutory regulations. Meanwhile, secondary legal materials consist of journals and books that are relevant to research problems. The collected data are then compiled,  processed,  and analyzed using prescriptive analysis using substance comparisons so that it will answer the problems.Keywords: Pre-trial, suspect, wanted List of people
Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Cases Yuherawan, Deni Setya Bagus
JILS (Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies) Vol 5 No 1 (2020): Globalization, Law, and Crimes: The Various Aspects of Law in Broader Context
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/jils.v5i1.38575

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze the investigation authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) on the counteraction case of corruption justice process. The reason for the writing is the existence of different interpretation of the authority of the KPK Investigator to conduct an investigation on the counteraction case of justice process in Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Law junto Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of the Corruption (the Law of Corruption Act). The analysis method of the problem formulation applies Grammatical Interpretation, Systematic Interpretation, and Teleological Interpretation. The legislation analyzed, besides the Anti-Corruption Law, is the Decree of the People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia Number XI / MPR / 1998 concerning State Administrators that are clean and free of corruption, collusion, and nepotism; also Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission junto Law Number 10 of 2015 concerning the Establishment of Government Regulations in lieu of Law Number 1 of 2015 concerning Amendments to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission. The conclusion of this article is that the KPK Investigator is not authorized to conduct an investigation on the counteraction case of corruption justice process.
Kedudukan Hukum dan Fungsi Surat Edaran Kapolri Nomor. SE/7/VII/2018 tentang Penghentian Penyelidikan Muhammad Huzaini; Deni Setya Bagus Yuherawan
Widya Yuridika Vol 4, No 1 (2021): Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Widya Gama Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This article reviews the Circular of the Chief of Police of the Republic of Indonesia Number: SE / 7 / VI / 2018 concerning the termination of the investigation. The emergence of this circular provides legal certainty value for alleged criminal acts with inadequate facts and evidence so that the investigation must be stopped. On the one hand, it also degrades the value of legal certainty because it forms a new norm regarding the termination of investigations which is not regulated at all in the Criminal Procedure Code as a formal legal basis in criminal law. The author is interested in reviewing the Chief of Police circular in terms of statutory regulations and functions. This paper is theoretical research with a conceptual approach. The results of this research are the legal position of the Chief of Police Circular Number: SE / 7 / VII / 2018 concerning the Termination of Investigation is not included in the laws and regulations. The function of the Chief of Police Circular Number: SE / 7 / VII / 2018 concerning the Termination of Investigation to fill the legal vacuum regarding the mechanism for terminating the investigation which is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code and the function of the Chief of Police Circular Letter No: SE / 7 / VII / 2018 concerning the Termination of Investigation is as instructions and notifications regarding the mechanisms and procedures for terminating investigations to investigators of the Indonesian National Police. AbstrakArtikel ini mengulas Surat Edaran Kapolri Nomor: SE / 7 / VI / 2018 tentang penghentian penyelidikan. Munculnya surat edaran ini memberikan nilai kepastian hukum atas dugaan tindak pidana dengan fakta dan bukti yang tidak memadai sehingga penyelidikan harus dihentikan. Di satu sisi juga merendahkan nilai kepastian hukum karena membentuk norma baru mengenai penghentian penyelidikan yang sama sekali tidak diatur dalam KUHAP sebagai landasan hukum formal dalam hukum pidana. Penulis tertarik untuk mengkaji surat edaran Kapolri ditinjau dari peraturan perundang-undangan dan fungsinya. Makalah ini merupakan penelitian teoritis dengan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian ini adalah kedudukan hukum Surat Edaran Kapolri Nomor: SE / 7 / VII / 2018 tentang Penghentian Penyelidikan tidak termasuk dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Fungsi Surat Edaran Kapolri Nomor: SE / 7 / VII / 2018 tentang Penghentian Penyelidikan untuk mengisi kekosongan hukum mengenai mekanisme penghentian penyelidikan yang tidak diatur dalam KUHAP dan fungsi Kepala Badan Reserse Kriminal. Surat Edaran Kepolisian No: SE / 7 / VII / 2018 tentang Penghentian Penyelidikan sebagai petunjuk dan pemberitahuan mengenai mekanisme dan prosedur penghentian penyelidikan kepada penyidik Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia.
Makna Kepentingan Umum Pada Kewenangan Deponering Dalam Perspektif Kepastian Hukum Dinda Heidiyuan Agustalita; Deni Setya Bagus Yuherawan
Jurnal Suara Hukum Vol. 4 No. 1 (2022): Jurnal Suara Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Pengesampingan perkara atau deponering merupakan kewenangan Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, khususnya Jaksa Agung. Pengaturan deponering diatur dalam Pasal 35 huruf c UU Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 yang menyatakan bahwa Jaksa Agung berwenang mengesampingkan perkara demi kepentingan umum. Pasal tersebut mengartikan kepentingan umum sebagai kepentingan dari bangsa dan negara, dan/atau kepentingan dari masyarakat luas. Konsep “kepentingan umum” menimbulkan pemahaman yang evaluatif dan kabur (vage normen). Makna evaluatif membutuhan kejelasan komprehensif, sehingga harus bersifat “clear and precise” (jelas dan tepat). Ketidakjelasan makna “kepentingan umum” berimplikasi pada ketidakpastian hukum. Parameter konsep “kepentingan umum” merupakan kebutuhan mutlak untuk memudahkan operasionalisasi makna kepentingan umum. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menganalisis parameter kepentingan umum untuk operasionalisasi konsep kepentingan umum, yang pada gilirannya akan memudahkan untuk menyandingkan konsep “kepastian hukum”. Penelitian hukum doktrinal ini menggunakan pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan, deponering adalah tidak dituntutnya perkara berdasarkan kepentingan umum, yaitu kepentingan bangsa dan negara yang merupakan kepentingan yang mencakup seluruh aspek dari bangsa yang terdapat dalam suatu negara. Serta, kepentingan masyarakat luas yang merupakan segala kepentingan terkait dengan tatanan kehidupan masyarakat secara menyeluruh. Apabila dalam penuntutan suatu perkara menimbulkan terganggunya stabilitas pemerintahan yang menyebabkan kerugian secara nyata bagi negara, serta menimbulkan reaksi ditengah masyarakat yang dapat mengancam keamanan masyarakat secara luas, maka penuntutan tersebut dapat ditiadakan atau dikesampingkan demi kepentingan umum. Selama ini, penafsiran makna kepentingan umum hanya didasarkan pada keyakinan Jaksa Agung saja. Oleh karena itu, perlu adanya aturan terkait konsep kepentingan umum pada kewenangan deponering, agar pemaknaan kepentingan umum dapat berorientasi pada kepastian hukum.
Co-Authors Dinda Heidiyuan Agustalita Muhammad Huzaini