Legal Loopholes in the Application for Termination of Investigation by Investigators Due to the Absence of Clear Standards in Determining Sufficient Evidence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38035/gijlss.v3i4.655Keywords:
Legal Vacuum, Termination of Investigation, SP3, Criminal Procedure CodeAbstract
This study examines the legal gaps that arise in investigators' requests to terminate investigations based on Article 109 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which authorizes the filing of an SP3 (Sufficient Evidence Order) due to "insufficient evidence" but does not outline the operational criteria. This lack of clarity in the standard leaves investigators open to subjective interpretation, potentially leading to misuse to terminate investigations without a clear basis, reducing legal certainty and harming victims. The study uses a normative juridical approach with a critical analysis of laws and regulations, legal literature, and investigative practices in Indonesia. The results show that the ambiguity of the term "sufficient evidence" creates a legal loophole that weakens investigator accountability and leads to injustice in the criminal justice system. As a direction for legal reform, it is recommended that there be clear technical guidelines for assessing sufficient evidence, a strict oversight mechanism by prosecutors, and public transparency regarding the basis for terminating investigations, so that the SP3 authority can be exercised objectively, accountably, and in accordance with the principle of legal certainty. This reform is expected to minimize the potential for misuse, increase the integrity of law enforcement, and strengthen the protection of victims' rights.
References
Ali, T. M. (2023). Kepastian Hukum Penghentian Penyidikan Oleh Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Yang Didasari Pada Tindakan Pembelaan Terpaksa Yang Melampaui Batas (Noodweer Excees). Jurnal Ilmiah METADATA, 5(2), 176-182.
Darmansyah, E., & Silalahi, W. (2024). Tinjauan Yuridis terhadap Reformasi Hukum Acara Penyidikan di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 5(7).
Devi, B. A. (2024). Pertimbangan Penyidik dalam Penghentian Penyidikan dalam Delik Culpa. Legal Journal of Law, 3(1), 43-52.
Dewanti, P. A., Kanaya, R., Faradila, K., & Rachman, H. (2025). Sistem Peradilan Pidana Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia: Analisis Terhadap Penyalahgunaan Kekuasaan Oleh Aparat Penegak Hukum. Court Review: Jurnal Penelitian Hukum, 5(05), 113-124.
Haris, O., Hidayat, S., Abdullah, S., & Mahadi, K. (2025). Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Wewenang Penghentian Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Halu Oleo Legal Research, 7(1), 239-254.
Hasanah, H. (2023). Analisis Kritis terhadap Kekuasaan Kehakiman: Implikasi Yurisprudensi dalam Reformasi Peradilan. YUDHISTIRA: Jurnal Yurisprudensi, Hukum dan Peradilan, 1(4), 43-50.
Jonadie, I. H. (2019). **Kewenangan Penyidik Menghentikan Penyidikan Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana**. LEX CRIMEN, 8(2), 82-92.
Makarewa, I. T. (2021). Analisis Penghentian Penyidikan dan Penuntutan Berdasarkan KUHAP. Lex Crimen, 10(9).
Mamengko, E. (2019). PENGHENTIAN PENYIDIKAN DALAM PRAKTEK PERKARA PRA PERADILAN. LEX CRIMEN, 8(7).
Nurman, N., Thalib, H., & Razak, A. (2024). Keabsahan Surat Penetapan Tersangka Dan Surat Penghentian Penyidikan Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia. Journal of Lex Theory (JLT), 5(1), 136-152.
Pramita, R., Suganda, M. A., & Putra, N. A. (2024). Alat-Alat Bukti Dan Perkembangannya Di Indonesia. Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research, 4(4), 6965-6972.
Purwono, U. H. (2024). Rekonstruksi Paradigma Penyidikan Dalam Sistem Negara Hukum Pancasila untuk Mewujudkan Keadilan Berdasarkan Pancasila. Binamulia Hukum, 13(2), 483-499.
Puspitasari, F., Mulyana, A., Arya, D. M., Lorita, D., Ashari, M. F., Jibrian, M., & Nurfadilla, S. (2025). Analisis Asas Akuntabilitas Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Indonesia. Jurnal Indragiri Penelitian Multidisiplin, 5(2), 92-97.
Putri, M. H., Munawar, A., & Aini, M. (2023). Proses Penyidikan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 4(7), 1-24.
Rijal, A. H., Muin, A. M., & Inrawati, D. (2021). Penerapan Diskresi Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2002. Jurnal Hukum Dan Kenotariatan, 5(3), 478-489.
Rozi, F. (2018). Sistem Pembuktian Dalam Proses Persidangan Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana. Jurnal Yuridis Unaja, 1(2), 19-33.
Saputra, E. (2025). Peran Penegak Hukum dalam Sistem Pidana Indonesia. Solok: PT MAFY MEDIA LITERASI INDONESIA.
Susilo, E. (2024). Kajian Tujuan dan Asas Hukum Acara Pidana: Pilar Utama Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia. Jurnal Thengkyang, 9(1), 65-79.
Yanlua, S. Z., Rahawarin, F., & Prawira, M. N. (2025). DINAMIKA KEWENANGAN JAKSA: PERAN DALAM PENUNTUTAN SAAT INI DAN ARAH PERUBAHAN DALAM RUU KUHAP. Jurnal Al-Ahkam: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam, 7(1), 14-23.
Yasin, H. N., Wantu, F. M., & Mustika, W. (2025). Menguji Legalitas Penetapan Tersangka di Indonesia: Prosedur KUHAP dan Dimensi Hak Asasi Manusia. Arus Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora, 5(1), 786-796.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 John Piter Tampubolon, Rineke Sara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright :
Authors who publish their manuscripts in this journal agree to the following conditions:
- Copyright in each article belongs to the author.
- The author acknowledges that the Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences (GIJLSS) has the right to be the first to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0).
- Authors can submit articles separately, arrange the non-exclusive distribution of manuscripts that have been published in this journal to other versions (for example, sent to the author's institutional repository, publication in a book, etc.), by acknowledging that the manuscript has been published for the first time at GIJLSS.
