43
PRETRIAL JUDGE AUTHORITY IN ADJUDICATING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS
Erdianto Effendi1,Rena Yulia2
1Universitas Riau, Indonesia, E-mail: erdianto.effendi@lecturer.unri.ac.id
2 Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Indonesia, E-mail: renayulia@untirta.ac.id
Submitted: January 13, 2023; Reviewed: March 08, 2023; Accepted: March 13, 2023 DOI: 10.25041/cepalo.v7no1.2863
Abstract
The Directorate General of Customs and Excise has administrative and law enforcement authority. In practice, judges often understand administrative authority as an investigative authority, thus granting pretrial requests for Acts that are the administrative authority. The method used is normative legal research is descriptive qualitative with qualitative analysis techniques using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results showed that pretrial judges differed in interpreting administrative authority. Only two of the five judges interpreted administrative authority as not pretrial objects.
Supposedly, judges are not authorized to examine the administrative authority exercised by Customs and Excise. Recommendations This research is to minimize the expansion of interpretation of the authority of forced efforts so that the issuance of the Supreme Mahakamh Circular or revise the Customs and Excise Law.
Keywords: Pretrial Authority Adjudicating Administrative; Customs; Excise A. Introduction
Directorate General Custom and Excise is one of the Directorates General under the Finance Ministry, supervising goods traffic in and out of Indonesia.1 In carrying out its duties, the Directorate General of Customs is given several administrative and law enforcement authorities (pro-Justitia) through the Civil Service Investigator agency (PPNS).2 The regulation of Civil Service Investigators is contained in Article 6 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), namely certain Civil Servants who are given special authority by law, based on the law on which the regulation is based, are lex specialis derogate lex generalis. 3
Thus, the officers of the Director General of Customs and Excise have two functions, namely as state administrative officers as well as law enforcement. As a Civil Service Investigator, Customs is authorized to carry out coercive measures on behalf of and for justice.
1 Abdul Muthalib, ‘Efektifitas Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Oleh Kepolisian Daerah
Sulawesi Selatan’, Jurnal Hukum Al Hikam, 4.1 (2017), 53–72
<https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepolisian_Daerah_Sulawesi_Selatan>.
2 Irwandi Syahputra and others, ‘Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Cukai Di Perbatasan Kawasan Perdagangan Dan Pelabuhan Bebas Bintan’, Jurnal Selat, 8.1 (2020), 89–107 <https://doi.org/10.31629/selat.v8i1.2747>.
3 Achmad Budi Waskito, ‘Implementasi Sistem Peradilan Pidana Dalam Perspektif Integrasi’, Jurnal Daulat Hukum, 1.1 (2018), 287–304 <https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v1i1.2648>.
Volume 7 Number 1, March 2023: pg. 43-52.
Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Lampung, Bandar Lampung, Lampung, Indonesia.
E-ISSN: 2598-3105 P-ISSN:2723-2581 http://jurnal.fh.unila.ac.id/index.php/cepalo
44
4 On the other hand, the Directorate General Bea and Cukai, as part of the administration of the government, are also given the authority to carry out several administrative actions whose form almost resembles a coercive effort.5
Civil servants are authorized to carry out law enforcement actions as part of the Criminal Justice sub-system. As PPNS, Investigators Bea and Cukai have the same duties and authorities as PPNS in other agencies.6 Therefore, the actions of PPNS as a subsystem of Criminal Justice at the level of investigation can be tested by pretrial institutions. The testable measures are coercive efforts, ranging from determining suspects and searches to arrests, arrests, and detentions. 7
By its function, the judiciary is provided by Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (the Criminal Procedure Code) to test actions committed by law enforcement officials, both investigators and public prosecutors, because these actions should be carried out according to and under the law according to the principle of due process of law. 8 In an investigation that is a pro justisia act or for justice, investigators are equipped with a certain amount of authority to use coercive measures that can be tested in pretrial. 9
Unfortunately, the pretrial authority under the Criminal Procedure Code only stops at the investigation process. The investigation is subject to a legal vacuum to be tested if there is an error in the act. Since it is not included as part of law enforcement, errors in performing administrative duties can be qualified as administrative law violations (administrative mall).
The authority of a pretrial Judge is limited to actions referred to as coercive efforts and acts of termination of investigation or termination of prosecution. Regarding forced efforts, the Criminal Procedure Code limits what is meant by forced efforts, starting from the act of search, seizure, arrest, and detention coupled with the determination of suspects based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 No. 21 / PUU-XII / 2014.10
Pretrial institutions cannot test other measures except those mentioned restrictively in the Criminal Procedure Code. Even including the actions of investigations carried out by the police, it has been generally accepted as an act that cannot be tested by pretrial. However, some judges make legal breakthroughs by adjudicating investigation cases, including the Pretrial Judgment in the Ende District Court. In his deliberations, Justice Y Juda Himawan in the Pretrial Tribunal of Ende District Court No. 02/Pid.Prap/2018/PN. Ende states that cursorily reading the formulation of the meaning of article 1 number 10 jo. Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be interpreted that "Investigation" does not include pretrial objects. However, in subsequent considerations, the pretrial Judge postulated that the Act of inquiry should have been understood as inseparable from the investigation activities on the ground that the police in both the act of investigation nor the act of investigation had placed or used the label "Pro Justisia." Based on its stubbornness, in the course of the investigation, it has not been included the pro-Justitia label. For the Sake of Justice in every action.
4 Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, ‘Asas Lex Specialis Systematis Dan Hukum Pidana Pajak’, Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 21.1 (2021), 1 <https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2021.v21.1-12>.
5 Didit Ferianto Pilok, ‘Kedudukan Dan Fungsi Jaksa Dalam Peradilan Pidana Menurut KUHAP’, Lex Crimen, 2.4 (2013), 1689–99.
6 Sahuri Lasmadi, ‘Tumpang Tindih Kewenangan Penyidikan Pada Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana’, INOVATIF Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 2.3 (2010), 34–43 <https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/jimih/article/view/200>.
7 R. Bayu Ferdian, Mohd. Din, and M. Gaussyah, ‘Penetapan Kerugian Negara Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi’, Syiah Kuala Law Journal, 2.3 (2018), 320–37 <https://doi.org/10.24815/sklj.v2i3.11648>.
8 Katalin Gombos, ‘Europeanisation Effects in the Court Jurisprudence’, International and Comparative Law Review, 19.1 (2019), 261–75 <https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2018-0059>.
9 Ni Made and others, ‘Upaya Hukum Pra Peradilan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia’, Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum, 1.2 (2020), 73–77.
10 Phileo Hazelya Motulo, ‘Upaya Paksa Dalam Proses Peradilan Pidana’, Lex Administratum, VIII.4 (2020), 149–58.
45
Notwithstanding the ruling, generally, if the police stop the investigation, the reporting party cannot test the action through any agency. This contrasts with the termination of an investigation that interested parties can test by filing a pretrial application. 11
Including, in this case, regarding customs and excise actions to carry out inspection, affirmation, termination, and sealing actions. It can also sometimes inflict harm and deprive citizens of their human rights. At the same time, pretrial is limited to only having the authority to examine and test pro-Justitia acts interpreted as starting from investigative actions. 12
Although it is not a pretrial authority, pretrial judges who examine Customs and Excise authority over administrative actions have two different views, namely accepting pretrial applications by equating administrative actions with coercive efforts according to the Criminal Procedure Code and rejecting pretrial applications because they are of the view that administrative actions are different from coercive efforts that are part of the investigation.
Pretrial also exercises law enforcement authority in waters outside Indonesia.This research is to minimize the expansion of interpretation of the authority of forced efforts so that the issuance of the Supreme Mahakamh Circular or revise the Customs and Excise Law.
This research uses a normative juridical approach method or literature study. The data used is secondary data consisting of primary legal materials, namely laws, and regulations, especially pretrial judges' decisions in law enforcement cases by customs and excise, secondary legal materials, namely scientific journals, and tertiary legal materials. The data collection procedure in this study is in the form of searching legal literature, collecting judges' decisions, and others related to the problems in this study.
B. Discussion
1. Pretrial Judge Decisions in Adjudicating the Administrative Authority of Customs and Excise
In democracies, it is not supposed that actions taken by the state and the government are in no way testable to the citizenry. That is the hallmark of the state of law. According to FJ Stahl, one of the envious of state law is that there must be an element of testing the administrative actions of the state by citizens. 13
Please note that not all Customs and Excise officials are PPNS. Apart from his authority as a Civil Service Investigator (PPNS), the Directorate General B ea and Cukai are part of the state administration carrying out government duties under the Ministry of Finance. So not all Customs and Excise officials are law enforcement. 14
Suppose the actions committed by the customs and excise authorities as administrative measures cannot be tested by the pretrial because the criminal procedure law restricts them. In that case, normatively, the testing of such actions should be returned to the general law in which the acts are interpreted as the actions of the state's administrative apparatus. Thus, the test should be carried out in the administrative court. In addition, the test of the actions of the state administration, in this case, the Directorate General Bea and Cukai, which are not acts of pro- Russia, can be tested using executive review, i.e., filing objections to the agencies thereon.15
11 Heri Wicaksono, ‘Pra Peradilan Tersangka Yang Ditetapkan Dalam Daftar Pencarian Orang Berkaitan Dengan Sema Nomor 1 Tahun 2018’, in Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Bonum Commune, 2019, II, 87–96.
12 Taufik Hidayat Lubis Ismail Koto, ‘Tindak Pidana Penyelundupan Pakaian Bekas Dalam Perspektif Teori Kepastian Hukum’, Bulletin Konstitusi, II.April (2021), 63–85.
13 Nani Widya Sari, ‘Kewenangan Kejaksaan Dalam Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dihubungkan Dengan Undang- Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia 1’, Dinamika Masalah Hukum Dan Keadilan, 4.September (2017), 174–92.
14 Safaruddin Harefa, ‘Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Tindak Pidana Di Indonesia Melaui Hukum Pidana Positif Dan Hukum Pidana Islam’, University Of Bengkulu Law Journal, 4.1 (2019), 35–58 <https://doi.org/10.33369/ubelaj.v4i1.7303>.
15 Nabila Nurlitasari and others, ‘The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Work Performance through Job Satisfaction and Work Engagement as Intervening Variables : Case Study on Kantor Pengawasan Dan Pelayanan Bea Cukai Tipe Madya Pabean Tanjung Emas Employees’, Budapest International Research and Critics Institute Journal, 5.1 (2020).
46 In practice, through pretrial hearings, the court has a different attitude towards the object disputed by the parties to the authority to test administrative actions carried out by Directorate General Bea and Cukai. Supreme Court Circular No. 2 of 2019 states that sealing by Customs and Excise Officers in their administrative duties is not a pretrial object.16
The decision of the pretrial Judge No. 3/Pid.Pra/2022/PN Tbk Tanjung Balai Karimun with judge Tri Rahmi Khairunnisa who adjudicated the party's pretrial application against the Directorate General of Customs and Excise of the Riau Islands Regional Office, decided to reject the pretrial application of the parties because of the view that the administrative actions taken by customs and excise are termination, enforcement, examination and sealing as part of an administrative action that is not a pretrial authority.
Pretrial judgment No. 1/Pid.Pra//2021/PN Tbk in the same district court as judge Reni Hidayati granted the petitioner's pretrial application by postulating on the consideration that a vessel crossing the territory is required to report to Singapore's Vessel Trafic Information System. The location of the "Heneghan" is not a customs area or an additional zone, so the respondent does not have the authority to enforce the motorboats of Pulau Salju or take legal action against cargo or vessels that do not have customs or excise obligations under the applicable regulations in Indonesia.
From the sound of these considerations, it can be seen that judge Reny Hidayati disagreed with judge Tri Rahmi in understanding the authority of affirmation. The activity of affirmation by Customs and Excise, an administrative authority, is understood by both judges as an administrative authority but differs in consideration for making decisions. Judge Tri Rahmi argued that the pretrial court had no authority to prosecute, while judge Reni Hidayati.
However, he admitted that the authority of affirmation was administrative and, in his ruling, considered the affirmative activities carried out by the Kepri Customs and Excise as unlawful.
That means that Judge Reni Hidayati considers the pretrial institutions to have the authority to assess the affirmative actions taken by the Riau Islands Customs and Excise.
Judge Tri Rahmi believed that examining administrative authority is not a pretrial authority but an internal authority of the government, the Administrative Court, or the authority of the Ministry of Finance. Justice Tri Rahmi's view aligns with Supreme Court Circular No. 2 of 2019, stating that sealing by Customs and Excise Officers in their administrative duties is not a pretrial object.
Judge Gracious Kesuma Prasnanta Perangin Angin in Decision No. 5/Pid.Pra//2022/PN Tbk, in his consideration, stated that the actions that Batam Customs and Excise acted as administrative actions were not affirmed in the Law but only affirmed in a Government Regulation. When there is a conflict between what is regulated in a Government Regulation and the Criminal Procedure Code, an Act, the Government Regulation does not apply. Judge Gracious Kesuma Prasnanta Perangin Angin believed that the administrative action taken by Customs and Excise had no basis and likened the act to an act of coercive effort to be carried out according to and under the Criminal Procedure Code.
This consideration ignores the provisions of Article 33 of Law Number 11 of 1995 as amended by Law Number 39 of 2007, namely that Customs and Excise Officers are authorized to take the necessary actions for Excisable Goods in the form of termination, inspection, affirmation, and sealing to implement this Law. Customs and Excise Officials are authorized to inspect Excise Goods and means of carrying out the authority as referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2). Customs and Excise Officers may be equipped with firearms whose types and regulations regulate conditions of use. Indeed, in Law Number 11 of 1995, as amended by Law Number 39 of 2007, these actions are not mentioned as administrative actions.
16 Edi Susilo Iskandar Zulkarnain, ‘Interoperabilitas TNI AL Dan Ditjen Bea Cukai Dalam Melaksanakan Pengawasan Terhadap Pelanggaran Di Wilayah Laut Nusantara’, Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 3.6 (2022), 169–74.
47
The mention of this action as an administrative action is in the Government Regulation of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Number 49 of 2009 concerning Procedures for Enforcement in the Field of Excise. The non-mention of such acts as administrative acts in the Act does not mean that acts of affirmation, termination, examination and sealing can be equated with coercion.
In PN Balikpapan, the Balikpapan District Court Judgment No. 05/Pid.Pra/2019/PN.Bpp, dated May 7, 2019, also granted the pretrial application filed by the petitioner and stated that the affirmation followed by the sealing of coal made by the respondent (DJBC) was invalid and the sealed coal should be returned to its original position, with legal considerations.
On the contrary, the Pretrial Judgment in the Sleman District Court No.
3/Pid.Pra/2019/PN.Smn considered that the Customs and Excise officials carried out the enforcement based on the Excise Act. The enforcement was carried out in his position as supervisor. The action as a supervisor is an administrative action, so the settlement is by filing a lawsuit through the PTUN, or if it is caused by losses incurred due to abuse of authority against the law can privately file a lawsuit. Administrative indentation is not a pretrial object because the object of pretrial is if the action is carried out with the exit of Sprindik.
From the five rulings, it can be seen that there are differences in the Judge's understanding of administrative actions. Some distinguish it from coercive effort in the context of an investigation, but some equate it with coercive efforts such as arrest, detention, seizure, and search.
The Judge's consideration that the Director General of Customs did not have the authority to inspect because the stopped vessel was outside Indonesian waters should also not need to exist. What is protected by Customs and Excise is the interest of the Indonesian state. Customs officers, in carrying out their work, are different from police, who consider two interests, namely the whistleblower's interests and the reported person's interests.
In Customs cases, no whistleblower's interests are fought for but rather solely the interests of the nation and the state. As part of the symbols of the state, judges should ignore that fact but focus only on law enforcement authority that the vessels suspected of violating Indonesian law are in the waters of a neighboring country, which should feel aggrieved in the neighboring country. If necessary, the Judge justifies customs actions if it is proven that they are committing acts outside the territory of Indonesia because Indonesian interests are disturbed by these illegal activities.
2. Legal Certainty in Law Enforcement and Enforcement of Administrative Actions Formal criminal law is different from material criminal law; if material criminal law regulates what acts can be punished with sanctions in the form of criminal, then formal criminal law regulates how law enforcement officers enforce material criminal law. Criminal law also limits how law enforcement officials work so as not to violate citizens' human rights.17
In addition, criminal law also gives law enforcement officials the authority to deprive citizens of their human rights by coercive means how the use of coercive efforts, which are fundamental human rights violations, then carried out by law enforcement officials to eliminate the unlawful nature of the form of human rights violations is regulated according to the law.18
The principle is that there are allowed restrictions on human rights, but they are done selectively with a greater intention of protecting broader human rights. As part of the state of the law, the basic principle is that every action of the state, especially those related to potential human rights violations, must be tested and accounted for so that arbitrariness does not occur.19
17 Ahmad Rofiq, Hari Sutra Disemadi, and Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya, ‘Criminal Objectives Integrality in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System’, Al-Risalah, 19.2 (2019), 179 <https://doi.org/10.30631/al-risalah.v19i2.458>.
18 Chandra Noviardy Irawan, ‘Penanganan Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Yang Dilakukan Oleh Anak Berdasarkan Restorative Justice’, Jurnal Usm Law Review, 4.2 (2021), 672 <https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v4i2.4283>.
19 Siska Amelya, ‘Kebijakan Integratif Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Penipuan Oleh Travel Ibadah Umroh’, Panji Keadilan, 4.1 (2021).
48 There are five legally valid forms of resistance that citizens can take against the state, namely: resistance to the government by-election, resistance to the courts with legal remedies, resistance to the DPR with judicial review to the Constitutional Court, resistance to the use of coercive efforts by law enforcement through pretrial, and attempts to resist the decisions of the state administration through the state administrative court.
For this reason, a pretrial institution in the Criminal Procedure Code adopts a similar institution in France, namely the commissioner judge. However, it seems that the drafter of the Criminal Procedure Code failed to regulate how to test actions in the form of investigations or other administrative actions before using coercive efforts at the start of the investigation. 20
The existence of a pretrial ruling that equates the actions of investigations by the police with administrative actions by Customs and Excise is not a solution to the legal vacuum but increasingly creates legal uncertainty for Customs and Excise law enforcement carrying out security measures for goods that are subject to excise. 21
Directorate Jenderal Bea and Cukai, through the Customs and Excise PPNS agency, are given authority by law to carry out coercive measures as investigators according to the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition to the forced efforts of the Directorate General, Bea and Cukai were also given the authority to carry out several actions as part of the administrative duties mandated by law.22
That is what distinguishes between public law and private law, where in public law, the position of citizens with the state is not equal to that in private law. In private law, the state can be a legal subject sued by a person and a legal subject.
In public law, the position of the state or government is higher than that of a citizen in which the state or government can make rules of a coercive nature of citizens without requiring the consent of citizens except in the case of criminal convictions or collection of money to citizens. Therefore, regulating sanctions in the form of criminal penalties and the authority to collect taxes or levies must be regulated in the law, where the approval of people's representatives is required both in the DPR and in the DPRD.
Beyond that, the government makes rules at the level of government regulations until the lowest regulations do not require citizens' approval. Suppose the actions of Director General Bea and Cukai in carrying out the enforcement of the investigation, the examination, the examination, and the sealing are understood as part of the enforcement of the law or the deprivation of human rights. In that case, they should be incorporated into the section of coercive efforts under the criminal procedure law. A violation of the use of such acts can be tested through pretrial institutions.23
However, this law does not regulate getting there but instead gives the authority of the act as an administrative measure. Because it qualifies as an administrative act, the test is not through pretrial but through the institution of the state administrative court.
If the Judge uses a legalistic approach, then it is correct if the Judge rejects the pretrial application to test the administrative action taken by the Director General of customs.
Conversely, suppose the Judge uses a progressive approach. In that case, it is not wrong for the Judge to interpret the administrative actions taken by Director General Bea and Cukai as part of a coercive effort. The expansion of such interpretations is an analogous legal invention. It is accepted that the analogy is rejected in criminal law.
20 Ulang Mangun Sosiawan, ‘Konstruksi Pra Peradilan Melalui Rekonstruksi Hakim Komisaris Sebagai Perlindungan Hak Tersangka Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia’, De Jure, 18.1 (2018), 73–92.
21 Maysarah, ‘Analisis Hukum Terhadap Pengaturan Kualifikasi Komoditi Dalam Penerapan Tarif Pada Barang Export Import’, De Lega Lata : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 5.7 (2020).
22 Bahrul Ulum, ‘Pengujian Kewenangan Administratif Dan Upaya Paksa Direktorat Jenderal Bea Dan Cukai Melalui Mekanisme Praperadilan’, Lex Lata, 4.1 (2022), 60–79.
23 Asliani Harahap, ‘Sistem Peradilan Edukatif Dalam Sistem Peradilan Anak Di Indonesia’, De Lega Lata, Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3 (2018), 217–29.
49
KUHAP is a criminal procedural law based on the principle of legality. The principle of legality in the Criminal Procedure Code gives birth to three other principles: the principle of lex strict, lex certa, and lex scripta. Because of human rights violations, the regulation of actions in the Criminal Procedure Code must be firm and limited. It must not be interpreted widely, even for and in the name of justice. However, the Criminal Justice System is not a system that works definitively but is a probabilistic system whose exact results cannot be expected. 24
Following the principle of the state of law, the resolution of problems in the community must be carried out by its portion so that law enforcement does not occur unlawfully. So far, normatively, a means of testing state administrative actions have been provided, namely through the state administrative court or through Executive review, namely appealing to the superior officials who make decisions in this case through the Ministry of Finance.
The problem is that testing through the administrative courts takes a long time. Because after the existence of a judgment of the first instance, the parties can file an appeal and review remedy. That presumably makes aggrieved parties go the way of filing a pretrial application to the district court. This is seen as less reflective and unable to meet the sense of justice for the parties who feel aggrieved by the administrative actions taken by the officers of Director General Bea Cukai.
Viewed from the perspective of justice, the two models of Judgment, both rejecting and granting, have their aspects of justice from different perspectives. The Judge who decides the case to adjudicate the administrative action taken by Director General Bea and Cukai cannot be blamed because they both have a legal basis and a perspective of legal interpretation.
The Judge's ruling is considered correct until a higher judgment overturns it. Unfortunately, the pretrial Judgment is the first and last Judgment that can no longer be tested. This kind of law enforcement practice creates a kind of anomaly that can also confuse the community and law enforcement in the field.
Suppose there is no firmness in the statute. In that case, it must be filled with guidelines from the Supreme Court to determine whether the administrative authority is a pretrial authority or an administrative court's authority to test it. Therefore, it is necessary to find the right solution so that the criminal procedural law does not cause diverse interpretations because the variety of interpretations in the criminal procedural law is contrary to the principle of legality, where the criminal procedural law must be definite and not multi-interpretation.
Conversely, suppose the country's legal policy is of the view that enforcement by Customs and Excise includes or equals coercion. In that case, the authority to terminate, seal, affirm, and inspect should be abolished or used as part of the investigator's actions.
The question then is, whose justice should be fought for? A criminal act in customs and excise is a criminal offense whose victim is not a person per person but the state. The state is at a disadvantage in the presence of criminal acts in customs and excise. Judges should prioritize justice. The perpetrators who are processed by the law by customs and excise officials, both by administrative and law enforcement, are people who have the potential or even have caused state losses.
C. Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that pretrial judges should not have the authority to examine the authority of Customs and Excise in carrying out administrative actions because it is derived from the state's administrative law. The justice that must be fought for in the criminal act of customs and excise is not the individual's justice but the nation's and the state's more significant interests. Testing of state administration should be carried out through its mechanism, namely the State Administrative Court. If legal politics views the settlement
24 Safitri Wikan, ‘Penegakan Hukum Pidana Berbasis Suistainable Ecological Development Dengan Plea Bargaining Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perusakan Lahan Tambang Di Kalimantan Selatan’, De Lega Lata : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 6 (2021), 49–63.
50 through the PTUN as taking too long, then what must be done is to change or revise the administrative authority possessed by the Directorate General of Customs and Excise in the Law. The free expansion of authority by pretrial judges can create legal uncertainty for the public and officers in the field.
D. Suggestion
To minimize the expansion of interpretation and legal uncertainty over the authority of coercive efforts to issue a Supreme Court Circular or revise the Customs and Excise Law.
References Journal
Amelya, Siska, ‘Kebijakan Integratif Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Penipuan Oleh Travel Ibadah Umroh’, Panji Keadilan, 4.1 (2021)
Effendi, Erdianto, and Ledy Diana, ‘Application of the Passive National Principle to Excise Crimes That Occur in the Outside Port Limits Area on the Border of Indonesia and Singapore,’ in SHIMBA 2022, September 18-20, Tanjung Pinang, Indonesia, 2022
<https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.18-9-2022.2326068>
Ferdian, R. Bayu, Mohd. Din, and M. Gaussyah, ‘Penetapan Kerugian Negara Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi’, Syiah Kuala Law Journal, 2.3 (2018), 320–37
<https://doi.org/10.24815/sklj.v2i3.11648>
Gombos, Katalin, ‘Europeanisation Effects in the Court Jurisprudence,’ International and Comparative Law Review, 19.1 (2019), 261–75 <https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2018- 0059>
Harahap, Asliani, ‘Sistem Peradilan Edukatif Dalam Sistem Peradilan Anak Di Indonesia’, De Lega Lata, Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3 (2018), 217–29
Harefa, Safaruddin, ‘Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Tindak Pidana Di Indonesia Melaui Hukum Pidana Positif Dan Hukum Pidana Islam’, University Of Bengkulu Law Journal, 4.1 (2019), 35–58 <https://doi.org/10.33369/ubelaj.v4i1.7303>
Hiariej, Edward Omar Sharif, ‘Asas Lex Specialis Systematis Dan Hukum Pidana Pajak’, Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 21.1 (2021), 1
<https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2021.v21.1-12>
Irawan, Chandra Noviardy, ‘Penanganan Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Yang Dilakukan Oleh Anak Berdasarkan Restorative Justice’, Jurnal Usm Law Review, 4.2 (2021), 672
<https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v4i2.4283>
Iskandar Zulkarnain, Edi Susilo, ‘Interoperabilitas TNI AL Dan Ditjen Bea Cukai Dalam Melaksanakan Pengawasan Terhadap Pelanggaran Di Wilayah Laut Nusantara’, Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 3.6 (2022), 169–74
Ismail Koto, Taufik Hidayat Lubis, ‘Tindak Pidana Penyelundupan Pakaian Bekas Dalam Perspektif Teori Kepastian Hukum’, Bulletin Konstitusi, II.April (2021), 63–85
Made, Ni, Sukaryati Karma, Fakultas Hukum, and Universitas Warmadewa, ‘Upaya Hukum Pra Peradilan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia’, Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum, 1.2 (2020), 73–77
Maysarah, ‘Analisis Hukum Terhadap Pengaturan Kualifikasi Komoditi Dalam Penerapan Tarif Pada Barang Export Import’, De Lega Lata : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 5.7 (2020) Motulo, Phileo Hazelya, ‘Upaya Paksa Dalam Proses Peradilan Pidana’, Lex Administratum,
VIII.4 (2020), 149–58
Muthalib, Abdul, ‘Efektifitas Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Oleh Kepolisian Daerah Sulawesi Selatan’, Jurnal Hukum Al Hikam, 4.1 (2017), 53–72
<https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepolisian_Daerah_Sulawesi_Selatan>
51
Nurlitasari, Nabila, I Gede Ary, Raditya Palguna, and Edy Rahardja, ‘The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Work Performance through Job Satisfaction and Work Engagement as Intervening Variables : Case Study on Kantor Pengawasan Dan Pelayanan Bea Cukai Tipe Madya Pabean Tanjung Emas Employees’, Budapest International Research and Critics Institute Journal, 5.1 (2020)
Pilok, Didit Ferianto, ‘Kedudukan Dan Fungsi Jaksa Dalam Peradilan Pidana Menurut KUHAP’, Lex Crimen, 2.4 (2013), 1689–99
Rofiq, Ahmad, Hari Sutra Disemadi, and Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya, ‘Criminal Objectives Integrality in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System’, Al-Risalah, 19.2 (2019), 179
<https://doi.org/10.30631/al-risalah.v19i2.458>
Sahuri Lasmadi, ‘Tumpang Tindih Kewenangan Penyidikan Pada Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana,’ INOVATIF Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 2.3 (2010), 34–43 <https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/jimih/article/view/200>
Sosiawan, Ulang Mangun, ‘Konstruksi Pra Peradilan Melalui Rekonstruksi Hakim Komisaris Sebagai Perlindungan Hak Tersangka Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia’, De Jure, 18.1 (2018), 73–92
Syahputra, Irwandi, Elwi Danil, Oksep Adhayanto, and Ayu Efritadewi, ‘Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Cukai Di Perbatasan Kawasan Perdagangan Dan Pelabuhan Bebas Bintan’, Jurnal Selat, 8.1 (2020), 89–107 <https://doi.org/10.31629/selat.v8i1.2747>
Ulum, Bahrul, ‘Pengujian Kewenangan Administratif Dan Upaya Paksa Direktorat Jenderal Bea Dan Cukai Melalui Mekanisme Praperadilan’, Lex Lata, 4.1 (2022), 60–79
Waskito, Achmad Budi, ‘Implementasi Sistem Peradilan Pidana Dalam Perspektif Integrasi’,
Jurnal Daulat Hukum, 1.1 (2018), 287–304
<https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v1i1.2648>
Wicaksono, Heri, ‘Pra Peradilan Tersangka Yang Ditetapkan Dalam Daftar Pencarian Orang Berkaitan Dengan Sema Nomor 1 Tahun 2018’, in Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Bonum Commune, 2019, II, 87–96
Widya Sari, Nani, ‘Kewenangan Kejaksaan Dalam Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dihubungkan Dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia 1’, Dinamika Masalah Hukum Dan Keadilan, 4.September (2017), 174–92
Wikan, Safitri, ‘Penegakan Hukum Pidana Berbasis Suistainable Ecological Development Dengan Plea Bargaining Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perusakan Lahan Tambang Di Kalimantan Selatan’, De Lega Lata : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 6 (2021), 49–63
52
