Problematika Hak Bantuan Hukum Sebelum Penetapan Tersangka dalam Perspektif KUHAP Baru
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pengaturan hak bantuan hukum terhadap seseorang yang diperiksa sebelum penetapan tersangka serta merumuskan model perlindungan hukum yang sesuai dengan prinsip due process of law. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, perbandingan, dan kasus. Bahan hukum dikumpulkan melalui studi kepustakaan dan dianalisis secara kualitatif menggunakan interpretasi gramatikal, sistematis, teleologis, dan konstitusional. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pemeriksaan seseorang tanpa status tidak dengan sendirinya bertentangan dengan prinsip due process of law, sepanjang disertai jaminan perlindungan hak yang jelas. Namun, pengaturan yang ada masih menimbulkan ketidakjelasan mengenai kedudukan hukum, sifat wajib atau sukarela pemeriksaan, nilai keterangan yang diberikan, serta akibat hukum apabila hak orang yang diperiksa dilanggar. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan rekonstruksi pengaturan berbasis risiko pemeriksaan, bukan hanya berbasis status formal. Rekonstruksi tersebut mencakup kewajiban pemberitahuan tujuan dan sifat pemeriksaan, hak berkonsultasi dan didampingi advokat, hak menolak menjawab pertanyaan yang memberatkan diri sendiri, penghentian sementara pemeriksaan ketika arah pemeriksaan berubah menjadi dugaan keterlibatan pidana, perekaman pemeriksaan, pemberian salinan berita acara, serta pengesampingan keterangan yang diperoleh melalui pelanggaran hak. Model ini dapat menjaga keseimbangan antara efektivitas penyidikan dan perlindungan hak asasi manusia.
References
Andi Cakra Cindrapole, M. J. (2025). transformasi Perlindungan Hak Asasi Manusia Dalam Negara Demokratis Modern. Judicatum: Jurnal Dimensi Catra Hukum, 3(2), 286–299.
Cape, E., & Hodgson, J. (2014). The Right to Access to a Lawyer at Police Stations: Making the European Union Directive Work in Practice. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 5(4), 450–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500404
Celiksoy, E. (2019). Overruling ‘ the Salduz Doctrine ’ in Beuze v Belgium : The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 10(4), 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284419879228
Cindrapole, A. C., & Rosmini, S. (2024). the Legal and Ethical Implications of Surveillance in Criminal Law : a Literatur Review. 4(1), 448–455.
Clooney, A., & Webb, P. (2021). The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/57195
Cusack, A., & Dehaghani, R. (2025). Navigating the right to a fair trial for vulnerable suspects pretrial: a legal and psychological critique of the Strasbourg jurisprudence. Human Rights Law Review, 25(2), ngaf010. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaf010
Daly, Y., & Conway, V. (2021). Selecting a lawyer: the practical arrangement of police station legal assistance. Journal of Law and Society, 48(4), 618–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12317
Daly, Y., Pivaty, A., Marchesi, D., & Ter Vrugt, P. (2021). Human Rights Protections in Drawing Inferences from Criminal Suspects’ Silence. Human Rights Law Review, 21(3), 696–723. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngab006
Easton, S. (1998). Legal Advice, Common Sense and the Right to Silence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/136571279800200202
Fauzi, S. I., & Ningtyas, I. P. (2018). Optimalisasi Pemberian Bantuan Hukum Demi Terwujudnya Access to Law and Justice Bagi Rakyat Miskin. Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1513
Giannoulopoulos, D. (2016). Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Law Reform and Comparative Law: A Tale of the Right to Custodial Legal Assistance in Five Countries. Human Rights Law Review, 16(1), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv039
Heard, C., & Shaeffer, R. (2011). Making Defence Rights Practical and Effective : Towards an EU Directive on the Right to Legal Advice. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 2(3), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441100200305
Hodgson, J. S. (2011). Safeguarding Suspects’ Rights in Europe. New Criminal Law Review, 14(4), 611–665. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2011.14.4.611
Jackson, J. D. (2016). Responses to Salduz : Procedural Tradition, Change and the Need for Effective Defence. The Modern Law Review, 79(6), 987–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12227
Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67(6), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028212
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The Psychology of Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(2), 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x
Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the Interrogation Room. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 86(2), 266. https://doi.org/10.2307/1144028
Mols, V. (2017). Bringing directives on procedural rights of the EU to police stations: Practical training for criminal defence lawyers. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 8(3), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284417723421
Penney, S. (2012). Police Questioning in the Charter Era: Adjudicative versus Regulatory Rule-making and the Problem of False Confessions. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1240
Pivaty, A., Beazley, A., Daly, Y. M., Beckers, L., De Vocht, D., & Ter Vrugt, P. (2021). Opening Pandora’s box: The right to silence in police interrogations and the Directive 2016/343/EU. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 12(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844211028304
Pivaty, A., Beazley, A., Daly, Y. M., De Vocht, D., & Ter Vrugt, P. (2021). Strengthening the protection of the right to remain silent at the investigative stage: What role for the EU legislator? New Journal of European Criminal Law, 12(3), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844211028319
Raharjo, A., Angkasa, A., & Bintoro, R. W. (2016). AKSES KEADILAN BAGI RAKYAT MISKIN (DILEMA DALAM PEMBERIAN BANTUAN HUKUM OLEH ADVOKAT). Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 27(3), 432. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.15881
Roberts, J. V. (1988). Empirical research on sentencing. In Research reports of the Canadian Sentencing Commission. Dep. of Justice Canada, Research and Development Directorate, Policy, Programs and Research Branch.
Schoovaerts, H., Vanderhallen, M., & McIntyre, S.-J. (2021). Lawyers and children: Is there a need for mandatory legal assistance in suspect interviews? International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557211008926
Shahlaei, F. (2025). The anatomy of a valid waiver of human rights. Human Rights Law Review, 25(2), ngaf009. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaf009
Soo, A. (2016). Potential Remedies for Violation of the Right to Counsel in Criminal Proceedings: Article 12 of the Directive 2013/48/EU (22 October2013) and its Output in National Legislation. European Criminal Law Review, 6(3), 284–307. https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2016-3-284
Soo, A. (2017). Article 12 of the Directive 2013/48/eu: A Starting Point for Discussion on a Common Understanding of the Criteria for Effective Remedies of Violation of the Right to Counsel. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 25(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-25012105
Soo, A. (2018). (Effective) Remedies for a Violation of the Right to Counsel during Criminal Proceedings in the European Union: An Empirical Study. Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.418
Suhariyanto, B., & Mustafa, C. (2022). ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF LEGAL AID IN THE INDONESIAN COURT. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 11(2), 176. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.11.2.2022.176-194
Sundari, E. (2014). LEGAL AID SCHEME IN INDONESIA: BETWEEN THE POLICY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION. JURNAL HUKUM IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 20(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol20.iss4.art3
Verhoeven, W.-J. (2014). Perspectives on Changes in the Right to Legal Assistance Prior to and During Police Interrogation. Erasmus Law Review, 7(4), 171–174. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000032
Verhoeven, W.-J. (2018). The complex relationship between interrogation techniques, suspects changing their statement and legal assistance. Evidence from a Dutch sample of police interviews. Policing and Society, 28(3), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1157594
Verhoeven, W., & Stevens, L. (2012). The Lawyer in the Dutch Interrogation Room: Influence on Police and Suspect. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1354
Zlati, G. (2016). The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Cryptography. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3311446
Copyright (c) 2026 sulthani sulthani, Andi Cakra Cindrapole, Andi Alfatih Dindra Kasih

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

