Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Indonesia merupakan negara civil law. Peraturan tertulis menjadi sumber hokum yang terutama dalam negara civil law. Dahulu sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia bersumber pada HIR yang menganut prinsip inquisitor. Sejak tahun 1982, sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia bersumber pada Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana/KUHAP yang menganut prinsip akusator. Prinsip akusator menjamin pelaksanaan hak asasi manusia yang terlibat dalam suatu proses pidana. Namun pasal-pasal dalam KUHAP sendiri justru masih menganut prinsip inquisitor. Hal ini dapat dilihat dengan adanya ketentuan mengenai suatu dokumen yang disebut sebagai berita acara penyidikan/BAP. BAP saksi dalam KUHAP, selain menjadi pedoman bagi hakim dalam memeriksa perkara, dapat pula menjadi sebuah alat bukti bagi hakim. Tentu saja hal ini telah melanggar prinsip akusator. Bahkan dalam praktik sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia, hakim kerap melakukan apa yang tidak ditentukan oleh KUHAP, dengan lebih mengutamakan keterangan dalam BAP saksi ketimbang dengan keterangan yang diberikan oleh seorang saksi di depan persidangan, sebagai alat bukti keterangan saksi yang sah.

---

Indonesia is a civil law country. In the civil law country, written rules become main sources of law. Indonesian Criminal Justice System was based on HIR which embraces an inquisitor principle. Since 1982, the Indonesian Criminal Justice System had been rooted in Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Law of Criminal Procedure / Criminal Procedure Code which adopts an akusator principle. Akusator principle ensures the implementation of human rights who involved in a criminal process. But the articles in the Criminal Procedure Code itself still adopts an inquisitor principle. It can be seen with the existence of a document named as the investigation report / BAP. This witness investigation minute, besides being a guide for judges in examining cases, it can also be an evidence for the judge?s consideration. Of course this condition has violated the principle of akusator. In fact, judges often do what is not determined by the Criminal Procedure Code, to prioritize the witness testimony written in BAP more than the testimony given by a witness before trial, as evidence of legitimate witness testimony."

"Investigating police is mostly heard as a witness before court to explain all facts of a certain case he has investigated. The judges need the explanation of investigating police since the doubtness of witness explanation or the witnes. has denied his/her previous comments, or the accused pulls back his/her comment. in letter of investigation process (BAP). The explanation of investigating police has the same function with a witness explanation in court session as an evidence (artIcle 184 KUHAP)"