1

A. Underlying Background
State authorities are coming from the law and the law itself is based on the
high values of humanity that are individual. The basis of law on humanity shows
the norms that respect people dignity and recognizes human rights.1
Generally, the law is meant as the whole of the rules in the community and
the ethics which can be enforced with any sanction.2 One of the legal objection is to
creating justice. The origin of the justice is on the point of view on the deeds and
human rights fulfillment. Justice fulfillment involved two parties, there is one party
as the treat and the other party as the treated.3
The existence of human rights protection and guarantee in the Criminal
Procedure Code in Indonesia upon suspects and defendant has an important mean
since almost of all the criminal law procedure sets as the human rights restriction
e.g. arrest, detention, searches, seizure, and punishment.
In the frame of law material criminal law enforcement, investigator,
prosecutor and judge should do their authorities in accordance with the provisions
and provide all suspect or defendant rights ruled. Rule enactment which breaks the
law will give them any consequences. One of its consequence is compensation
lawsuit from the suspect of the defendant.
The compensation according to Article 1 (22) the Criminal Procedure Code
is the right of people to obtain the fulfillment for their claims in the form of the
amount of money for the arrest, the detention, or proceed without reasonable
evidence-based on the Law or error in persona or misapplied law.
The compensation lawsuit which is conducted by the suspect or the
defendant is the form of human rights and people dignity protection. If the suspect
or the defendant treat unfairly or without the correct basis, there is a right to
proceed lawsuit.4
Conceptually, right for compensation lawsuit is citizen right to obtain
compensation and rehabilitation as the result of law enforcement to be responsible

1
Bambang Poernomo, 1988, Orientasi Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Amarta Buku, Yogyakarta, p.
61.
2
Sudikno Mertokusumo, 1986, Mengenal Hukum, : Suatu Pengantar, Liberty, Yogyakarta, p. 37.
3
Esmi Warassih, 2005, Pranata Hukum: Sebuah Telaah Sosiologis, Suryandaru Utama, Semarang, p.
24.
4
M. Yahya Harahap, 2010, Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP: Pemeriksaan Sidang
Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, p. 38.
 2

in the court. Besides that, the right contains one principle which is the state can be
claimed for every deed upon their citizen.5
Compensation lawsuit should be appraised based on the losses which are
truly caused by the arrest or detention unlawfully or proceeded not by the law with
the unreasonableness. The suited compensation should be material losses and the
amount to be reckoned with regarding party interests.6
Formally, the procedure of compensation payment by suspect or defendant
is ruled through:
1. Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983 concerning The Implementation of
Criminal Procedure Code (Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983);
2. Government Regulation No. 58 of 2010 concerning The Amendment of
Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983 concerning The Implementation of
Criminal Procedure Code (Government Regulation No. 58 of 2010);
3. Government Regulation No. 92 of 2015 concerning the second Amendment
of Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983 concerning The Implementation of
Criminal Procedure Code (Government Regulation No. 92 of 2015);
4. The Regulation of Ministry of Finance No: 983/KMK.01/1983 concerning
The Procedure for the Payment of Indemnity.
Whereas the provisions of which are used as the basis of compensation
payment, it is not applicable for some case which has been a verdict by the court.
They should get their right to compensation. On the Article 11, Government
Regulation No. 27 of 19837 stipulates that:
(1). The payment of compensation can be done by the Ministry of Finance based
on the quotes of compensation decision;
(2). The payment procedure of compensation is arranged further by the Ministry of
Finance;

5
Ibid., p. 39
6
Bambang Poernomo, Ibid, pp. 143-144.
7
Government Regulation No. 92 of 2015, the amendment of Article 11 is:
(1). The payment of compensation can be done by the Ministry of Finance based on the quotes of
compensation decision or court decision as mentioned on the Article 10.
(2). The payment of compensation shall be done 14 (fourteen) days starting from the date of the
application lawsuit compensation received by the Minister which held financial affair.
(3). The provision concerning the procedure of compensation payment is ruled on the Regulation of
Ministry which held financial affair.
 3

One example unimplemented provisions in article 11 of Government

Regulation No. 27 of 1983 can be seen in the case of Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo.8
Accordingly, Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo is a suspect and a defendant who is allegedly
charged with committing criminal acts of economic or sexual exploitation. It
commits with the intent of his own or someone else's objective in Article 88 of Law
No. 23 of 2002 on the Protection of the Other by the Panel of Judges of the District
Court Semarang who conducted the case of Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo with criminal
penalty for 8 months and Rp 2,000,000.00 fine, subsidiary 2 months confinement
and required to pay case fee Rp.2.500,00.
At the appeal level, Sri Mulyati Binti Kidjo's case was adjudged by the High
Court Judge of Central Java who examined the case of Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo
with 1-year imprisonment and a fine of Rp.2.000.000,00 subsidiary for 2 months in
jail and was required to pay the cost of the case Rp.2.500.00. At the appeal level,
Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo was declared not guilty of committing a criminal act as
regulated in Article 88 of Law No. 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection. So, Sri
Mulyati Binti Kardjo was freed by the Cassation Judge Assembly who examined
Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo case.
On the basis of the aforementioned cessation decision and referring to the
provisions of Article 95 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code then Sri
Mulyati Binti Kardjo filed a lawsuit to the District Court of Semarang. Although in
the Semarang District Court, the indemnification lawsuit was rejected but at the
appeal and cassation level it was claimed that the compensation suit was granted by
the Panel of Judges with the verdict, among others, as follows:9
1. Order the state to compensate the applicant for a fee of Rp 5,000,000.00.
2. Order the state to return the money that has been deposited by the applicant
as a fine of Rp.2.000.000,00 and the cost of the case Rp.2.500,00 plus
Rp.2.500,00 equals Rp.5.000,00.
Although the verdict of the indemnification law already has a permanent
legal force and there is already a legal instrument in the form of legislation to
implement the verdict, but until 2017, Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo has not obtained the
right as has been decided by the Panel of Judges.

8
Legal Consideration for Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo Judges Decision is still using Government
Regulation No. 27 of 1983 because its trial helded on 2012.
9
Supreme Court Decision No. 1262 K/Pid/2012
 4

B. Research Questions
Based on the aforesaid background, there are 3 (three) issues that will be the
author concern in this research, that is:
1. What is the consideration of the Panel of Judges of Cassation to grant the
lawsuit of compensation filed by Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo?
2. Why did the state not implement the verdict of appeal for indemnification
No. 1262 K / Pid / 2012 filed by Sri Mulyati Binti Kardjo?
3. How should the forward concept of compensation payments in a criminal
case as the right of the suspect by the state?

C. Research Methods
1. Type of Research
The type of research is a combination of juridical normative-empirical
research. Normative juridical research is literature research seeking to
inventory legal material (collecting, clustering and clarifying) in order to
examine the consistency and synchronization of the application of legislation,
while empirical juridical research is research in order to see the law in a real
sense and examine how the workings of the law in community environment by
way of inventorying the facts that exist within a community, legal entity or
government agency.10
In the normative research covers research of law principles, the legal
system, vertical and horizontal synchronization level and legal history
research, whereas in empirical legal research will conduct field research to
obtain primary data in order to support data obtained in library research.
This research seeks to find actual and factual information in order to
describe the implementation of compensation payments in criminal cases as a
form of fulfillment of rights for defendants by the state. Therefore, the data
used are primary data by using qualitative analysis.
2. Research Data and Instrument
a. Literature Data

10
Soerdjono Soekanto dan Sri Mamudji, 1994, Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauang Singkat,
Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta, p. 13.
 5

Literature data is the way to obtain secondary data which consist of

primary source law, secondary source law, and tertiary source law. It
conducts with the collecting legal source that related to the research
question.
1) Primary Legal Sources:
a) Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Code;
b) Government Regulation No. 58 of 2010 concerning the
amendments to Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983
concerning Criminal Procedure Code;
c) Government Regulation No. 92 of 2015 concerning Second
Amendments of Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983
concerning Criminal Procedure Code;
d) Regulation of The Ministry of Finance No. 983/KMK.01/1983
concerning The Payment Procedure for Compensation.
e) Court Decision concerning Compensation on Criminal Case.
2) Secondary Legal Sources:
a) Books concerning research question;
b) Article, journal, Gazette, paper concerning compensation on
criminal case;
3) Tertiary Legal Sources is the legal source which explains the direction
to understand the primary and secondary legal source:
a) Law Dictionary;
b) Bahasa Indonesia Prime Dictionary;
c) English Dictionary.
b. Field research
Besides conducted by library research also conducted field
research related to the problem. This research is conducted to provide an
overview of the object under study in empirical, so that obtained clarity
and objective data.
The data used in this study is primary data (primary data), i.e. data
obtained directly from resource persons and respondents as supporting
secondary data review.
 6

3. Collecting Data
Methods and data collection used in this study are as follows:
1. Secondary Data
Library research covering primary legal sources, secondary law sources
and tertiary legal materials as secondary data is used with literature study or
document study by recording the various things relevant to this research
2. Primary Data
To obtain the primary data, the research instrument used is interview
using interview guides conducted in two ways, namely:
a. Interviews with structured guidelines, that is, when the guidelines are
done in detail; and
b. Interviews with unstructured guidance, ie when the guidelines only
include an outline of the interview.
This study used a combination of the two kinds of interview guidelines.
Interviews with structured guidelines are made when the subject of this study
requires the question to be submitted in writing and then the interview
answers are given later in writing. This interview uses a structured
questionnaire containing open-ended questions. The combination of
interviews with structured and unstructured guidelines is used when the
subject of this study is willing to provide oral answers at the time of the
interview.
4. Method of Analysis
The method of analysis in this study using qualitative analysis method which
uses a qualitative analysis process based on the semantic relationship between
the variables that were studied. The presentation of this research data is
descriptively analyzed systematically so as to get a comprehensive picture
about the principles of law, legal principles, and legal sense. The deductive
conclusion of this research is to explain the general problems that end with
the conclusion in the form of a special statement. 11

11
Ariesto Hadi Sutopo dan Adrianus Arief, 2010, Terampil Mengolah Data Kualitatif, Prenada Media
Group, Jakarta, p. 23.
 7

D. Research Result and Analysis

1. Cassation Judges Panel Consideration Grating Compensation Lawsuit of
Sri Mulyani Binti Kardjo
Whereas from the examination of the evidence presented by Sri Mulyati
(Plaintiff) as well as evidence presented by the Respondent (State, Police of the
Republic of Indonesia and the Attorney-General's Office), the Judge who
inspects the compensation claim essentially refuses the request for compensation
filed by the Plaintiff.
The judges' consideration in rejecting the request for compensation
from the Plaintiff is as follows:
a. That the action of the Respondent I (POLRI) in performing the duties and
authorities of investigation and investigation and the detention of the
Petitioner (Sri Mulyati) cannot be categorized as wrong because all actions
taken by Respondent I have been in accordance with the legal corridor
because from the beginning of the investigation to the file shall be declared
complete by the Public Prosecutor, there is no administrative flaw and the
Respondent I have granted the Petitioners' rights when declared as a
suspect, there is no pre-trial lawsuit against the pro justice process
conducted by Respondent I.
b. Whereas the action of the Respondent II (Attorney-General's Office) in
performing the duty and authority of the prosecution cannot be categorized
as a misconduct because all actions taken by the Respondent II have been in
accordance with the legal corridor because from the beginning of the
examination of the case file up to the prosecution process in court there is
no defect administration and Respondent II was granted the Plaintiff rights
when declared as a suspect, there was no pre-trial lawsuit over the pro
justice process conducted by Respondent II. Whereas if the Supreme Judge
of the Supreme Court declares that the Public Prosecutor's indictment is not
proven then there can be no defect in the procedure of law enforcement
against the Plaintiff, due to the different views between the Public
Prosecutor and the Cassation Judges in interpreting the elements of the
article charged to the Plaintiff.
 8

The Respondent I and Respondent II there is no mistake in the

application of the law because based on the examination result from the
investigator, Respondent I and Respondent II have obtained sufficient evidence,
the Petitioner related to article 88 of Law No. 23 of 2002 concerning Child
Protection.
The Opinion of Appeal Judge is different with the District Court
Judge. Appeals Judge turned out to receive a lawsuit compensation filed by the
plaintiff, as for the judge's consideration level of appeal is as follows:
a. With the free judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia,
it is clear from the process of investigation, prosecution and until the trial,
then Respondent I and Respondent II have erred in applying the law to the
Plaintiff in Article 95 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Law, namely by
making the Plaintiff as the suspects and defendants and the Plaintiff' plea
guilty of criminal acts of exploiting children's economy in the sense of
Article 23 of Law No. 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection, in fact the
Plaintiff have never committed.
b. The Plaintiff has been blamed for alleged criminal offenses that have never
been perpetrated, so that the plaintiff can automatically be held in custody,
in order for the plaintiff to get out of custody, then on July 5, 2012, the
minister fines Rp.2.000.000,00 and Rp. 2,500.00 to Respondent II.
The Civil Code which states "everyone is responsible not only for the harm
caused by his actions but also for the harm caused by negligence or caution."
The provisions of Article 1366 of the Civil Code are relevant to the fact that
there is a mistake in applying the law, namely to make Sri Mulyati as a suspect
and defendant and indict Sri Mulyati guilty of the alleged criminal act
"exploiting children's economy" in the case of Article 88 of Law No. 23 of 2003
concerning Child Protection There is a mistake in the application of the law,
Investigators and Prosecutors have fulfilled the provisions of Article 1336 of the
Civil Code, because it is erroneous or misguided. It cannot be said of the law,
but because of lack of caution has caused Sri Mulyati to be harmed.
 9

2. The State Is Unable to Fulfill Cassation Judges Decision No. 1262

K/Pid/2012 concerning Compensation Lawsuit which is claimed by Sri
Mulyati Binti Kardjo
The Article 95 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates
"the Suspect, the defendant or the convicted person shall be entitled to claim
compensation for arrest, detention or prosecution and prosecution or subject to
other acts without reason based on law or by mistake concerning his error in
person or the law application" as juridical basis in consideration of the Judge in
his verdict granting compensation for Sri Mulyati. The authors agree with the
juridical grounds, since Investigator and Prosecutors have mistakenly applied the
law to Sri Mulyati, Investigators are not careful and premature in concluding the
facts of the investigation so as to establish Sri Mulyati as a suspect, as well as
the Prosecutor is also not careful and thorough in conducting research formally
and materially on the file of Sri Mulyati case so as to assume the file of the Sri
Mulyati case is considered complete in a formal and material manner so that the
Prosecutor declares the file ready to be raised to the prosecution at the Semarang
District Court
According to Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4 of the Regulation of the
Minister of Finance No. 983/KMK.01/1983, there is a sufficiently long stage in
the disbursement process after the pre-trial verdict. The sequence of the
proceedings from the beginning of the pretrial examination of the illegality of
arrest and the illegal detention, the results of the examination is then granted pre-
trial application of compensation due to illegal arrest and detention. Pre-trial
decision to grant compensation for the illegality of arrest and detention in
accordance with the Regulation of the Minister of Finance No. 983/KMK.01/
1983 the Head of the local District Court filed a request for the provision of
funds to the Minister of Justice CQ. General Secretary of the Department of
Justice. In advance, the Minister of Justice submits the issuance of authorization
(Surat Keputusan Otorisasi/SKO) to the Minister of Finance CQ. General
Director of Budget which then proceeds with the issuance of authorization
(SKO) which is still included in the burden of the financing section and the
calculation of routine state budget.
 10

Based on information from Sri Mulyati, she has completed all the files
required by the Regulation of the Minister of Finance No. 983/KMK.01/1983
and the file has been submitted to the District Court of Semarang to be
forwarded to the Ministry of Finance, but until now Sri Mulyati has not obtained
yet the information to which the process of disbursement of damages position.
The information and data obtained by the Author from the District
Court of Semarang that the file of a request for disbursement of compensation
from Sri Mulyati has been sent to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights for
authorization to be sent to the Ministry of Finance for budgeting in accordance
with the court decision, but until now The District Court of Semarang has not
obtained information on the extent of the process of disbursement of
compensation claimed.12
The Office of State Treasury in Semarang said that there is no budget
that entered into the List of Budget (DIPA) of the District Court of Semarang
related to the compensation budget petitioned by Sri Mulyati, so the State
Treasury Service Office in Semarang can continue the budget of compensation
to the List of Budget (DIPA) of the District Court of Semarang.

3. The Forward Concept of Compensation Payments in A Criminal Case as

The Right of The Suspects by The State
The disbursement of the amount of compensation filed by the pre-trial
request, if it is granted the validity of the Regulation of the Minister of Finance
of the Republic of Indonesia No. 983/KMK.01/1983 (hereinafter referred to as
the Regulation of the Minister of Finance No. 983/KMK.01/1983). In the
Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia therein shall
regulate the disbursement procedure which is divided into several articles as
follows:
a. Article 2 paragraph (1), by enclosing the stipulation of the court, the
chairman of the local district court applies for the provision of funds to the
Minister of Justice CQ. General Secretary of the Department of Justice.
b. Article 2 paragraph (2), based on the request of the chairman of the district
court, the Minister of Justice CQ. General Secretary of the Department of

12
Joko Suhatmo, The Clerk of the Distrct Court of Semarang, Interview on June 15th 2017.
 11

Justice is required to submit the issuance of authorization (SKO) quarterly

or every time to the Minister of Finance CQ. General Director of Budget
includes a copy of the determination of the court on which the request is
based.
c. Article 2 paragraph (3), based on the request of the Minister of Justice
referred to the Minister of Finance CQ. General Director of Budget issues
an authorization decision (SKO) as the financial burden and in the
calculation of routine state budget.
d. Article 2 paragraph (4), the original authorization decision (SKO) is
submitted to the entitled.
e. Article 3 Paragraph (1), based on the Issuance of Authorization (SKO) in
Article 2 paragraph (4), the entitled apply for the payment to the State
Treasury Office (KPN) through the local district court chairman, by
enclosing:
1). the Issuance of Authorization (SKO)
2). Original and copies court decisions.
f. Article 3 Paragraph (2), the Chairman of the District Court shall forward
the request for payment referred to in paragraph (1) to the treasury office of
the paying country attached with the letter of payment request (SPP).
g. Article 4 Paragraph (1) shall be based on the decision of authorization
(SKO), the request for payment from the entitle and the letter of request for
payment (SPP) of the local court chairman, the state treasury office (KPN)
shall issue a warrant to pay (SPM) fixed load.
h. Article 4 paragraph (2) The original decision of the court stipulation, after
having stamped of the payment has been made, by the state treasury office
(KPN) shall be returned to the entitled.
Based on the Regulation of the Minister of Finance No.
983/KMK.01/1983 the authors have an opinion that at the stage of the process of
disbursement of the cost of compensation by using the Minister of Finance
Decision No. 983/ KMK.01/1983 still use a double bureaucratic line which
means there are two agencies government that is related and has the authority,
that is the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Finance, this ultimately requires a
long duration of liquefaction and long bureaucratic process.
 12

There are two things that can be used as a reference in terms of nominal
justice for damages to the plaintiff:
1. Nominal compensation for being arrested, detained, prosecuted and
prosecuted or subject to other unprocedural actions should be determined
solely by the plaintiff. The nominal restriction which is legalized through
legislation will not provide fair value for the plaintiff because there is no
certainty that the maximum nominal given by the government is in
accordance with the real losses experienced by the plaintiff. The judge
should be authorized to assess the appropriateness of compensation that the
government should pay to the plaintiff because, in the hearing, the judge can
make a decision by judging from the facts revealed in the hearing.
2. As the High Court and State Institution, the Supreme Court is authorized to
issue regulations for the conduct of the judiciary, which is, of course, its aim
to create justice for the whole society. Fulfilling the community's sense of
justice and conceiving obsolete legislation in order to be in line with the
times, the Supreme Court has adjusted the currency value of the amounts of
fines set forth in the Criminal Code (KUHP) in 2012 through the Rules of
the Court Supreme No. 2 of 2012 on Adjustment of Limit Crime and
Number of Penalties in the Criminal Code (Supreme Court Regulation No.
2/2012). The reason for the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court
Regulation No. 2/2012 since 1960 the value of money contained in the
Criminal Code has never been re-adjusted so that it needs to be adjusted;
a. If waiting for the Criminal Code to be changed first, it will take a long
time while the cases continue to go to court;
b. Since 1960 the value of the rupiah has undergone changes, so it needs
to be adjusted to the current conditions and;
c. Supreme Court Regulation is not intended to change the Criminal Code,
the Supreme Court only needs to make adjustments to the value of
money that is not in accordance with current conditions. It is intended
to facilitate the judge to give justice to the case of his trial;
Based on the authority that the Supreme Court relating to the reason for
the issuance of Supreme Court Regulation No. 2/2012, the authors argue that
the Supreme Court immediately issue a Supreme Court regulation regarding
 13

the adjustment of the value of compensation in the Criminal Procedure Code to

be consistent with current developments so as to provide justice to the affected
communities by being arrested, detained, prosecuted and tried or charged other
un-procedural actions.
In addition, it can use the jurisprudence reference through the judge's
verdict. One of the duties of a judge is to find or create a law. It is based on the
assumption that first, the Judge is not a funnel of law, secondly, not all laws
and regulations are fair and able to answer problems in a society that is so
rapidly changing and developing. Therefore, the judge as an educated and
expert in the field of law has a legal and moral obligation to be able to see deep
into the problems of society, to follow and understand the values of law and
sense of justice living in society through the decisions he created. So, the
decisions are contextual with the development of society and meet the sense of
community justice.
In the context of the value of compensation in the Government
Regulation No. 27 of 1983 concerning the Implementation of the Criminal
Procedure Code, in practice, the Judge never granted the lawsuit of
compensation exceeding that stipulated in Government Regulation No. 27 of
1983 concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code. Yet we
all know that the rule is no longer relevant and the value of compensation in
the Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983 also has not contextual or in
accordance with the current development. The judge as the representative of
God and as the last bastion for the seeker of justice should be able to see this
problem. So, it is expected to create a progressive decision, which meets the
needs and sense of community justice so as to be able to answer the problems
in the community not just rigidly tied to obsolete rules.
In addition, the regulation and execution of damages in the Criminal
Procedure Code must be accompanied by good implementation oversight if it
is to be qualified as a regulation that can be accounted for beneficially.
Measurement of good indemnity regulations can be seen on whether or not
these regulations support the settlement of appropriate, prompt, and
inexpensive compensation payments. Thus, the concerned will not suffer,
suffered financial loss, time, mental and others.
 14

E. Conclusion and Recommendation

1. Conclusion
Based on the results of research and discussion, the following
conclusions are obtained:
a. The main consideration of the Judge so as to grant the lawsuit of
compensation claimed by Sri Mulyati is that there has been an error in the
application of the law and regulation in the process of investigation and
prosecution in a criminal case in the name of Sri Mulyati who is suspected
and charged with violating Article 88 of Law No. 23 of 2002 concerning
Child Protection.
b. The State has not been able to execute the Judge's decision to pay
compensation to Sri Mulyati because in the List of Semarang District Court
Budget Implementation has not been listed the compensation budget as
requested by Sri Mulyati.
c. The ideal concept of the exercise of compensation in the future should not
be any nominal restriction, instead, the applicant should be given the most
rights to assess the fairness of the fair amount to be accepted but the judge is
given the authority to determine the amount of compensation after assessing
the proposed evidence in the hearing. In addition, there needs to be
streamlining disbursement procedures by proposing a request for provision
of funds from the Chairman of the Court directly to the Ministry of Finance
not necessary through the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.
2. Recommendation
Based on the results of research and discussion, the following
suggestions are given:
a. In order for the Government Cq. Ministry of Finance to immediately revise
the Regulation of the Minister of Finance No. 983/KMK.01/1983
concerning the Procedure of Payment of Indemnification.
b. In order for law enforcement officers, especially Investigators and
Prosecutors, to minimize similar incidents so as to be more careful and
apply legislation professionally in taking legal action, especially arrest and
detention measures.
 15

REFERENCES

A. Books

Poernomo, Bambang, 1988, Orientasi Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Amarta

Buku, Yogyakarta.

Warassih, Esmi, 2005, Pranata Hukum: Sebuah Telaah Sosiologis, Suryandaru

Utama, Semarang.

Harahap, M. Yahya, 2010, Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP:

Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi dan Peninjauan
Kembali, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.

Mertokusumo, Sudikno, 1986, Mengenal Hukum: Suatu Pengantar, Liberty,

Yogyakarta.
B. Laws

Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law (State Gazette No. 76 of
1981).

Government Regulation No. 58 of 2010 concerning the Amendments to

Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983 concerning the Implementation of
Criminal Procedure Law (State Gazette No. 90 of 2010).

Government Regulation No. 92 of concerning the Second Amendments of

Government Regulation No. 27 of 1983 concerning the Implementation of
Criminal Procedure Law (State Gazette No. 290 of 2015).

The Regulation of Minister of Finance No. 983/KMK.01/1983 concerning The

Procedure of Payment Compensation.

C. Court Decision

Supreme Court Decision No. 1262 K/Pid/2012