KEWENANGAN HAKIM DALAM MENETAPKAN TERSANGKA TERHADAP PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KEHUTANAN BERSDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 18 TAHUN 2013 TENTANG PENCEGAHAN DAN PEMBERANTASAN PERUSAKAN HUTAN

Abstract

The criminal procedure code chapter 1 verse 14 explain that a suspect is someone who because of his actions of conditions based on preliminary evidence reasonably suspected as criminals. And those who have the authority to determine the statue of a ssuspect are investigators in according the criminal procedure code chapter 1 verse 1 and verse 2. But in the law number 18 of 2013 chapter 36 letter d Concerning The Prevention And Eradication Of Forest Destruction, states that judge can determine a person becomes a suspect and inserted into the search list. This research aims to determine whether the judge can assign a person becomes a suspect and how the authority of the judge in determining the statue of suspects referred to the law number 18 of 2013 Concerning The Prevention And Eradication Of Forest Destruction. This research used normative legal method and using the conceptual approach and statutory approach. The data source used is secondary legal data. The results of the research show that in fact in carrying out their duties, judges are only authorized in court according to the contents of the law on judicial power and the criminal procedure code. In the criminal procedure code chapter 174 states that a judge can determine the statue of a suspect in court only if during the examination the witness in court and the judge believes the the witness had given false perjury, the judge can order the prosecutor to re-examine the alleged perjury on the basis of the result of the trial minutes. Determination of suspect status by the judge should be applicable in cases of forestry crimes, remembering that in forestry crimes cases it is often the accused person who should not be responsible, then with the conviction the judge has the right to summon witnesses who are suspected by the judge to be closely related to forestry criminal cases. Doesn’t provide clarity regarding where the judge’s authority lies in determining the statue of a suspect.