ANALISIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN HAKIM PRAPERADILAN PADA PENGADILAN NEGERI ENDE NOMOR 2/PID.PRAP/2018/PN.END DALAM PERKARA DUGAAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

Nowadays, the scope of the pretrial institution has expanded as stipulated in Article 1 point 10 of the Criminal Code Procedure. This is due to the verdict of Judge Sarpin Rizaldi who won the Budi Gunawan case on a pretrial request with the object of the petition namely the determination of the suspect. Then, the verdict of Judge Sarpin was corroborated by the Constitutional Court Verdict number 21/PUU-XII/2014 which established the object of a new pretrial, namely the determination of the suspect. Regarding to that matter, the writer aimed to do a research in the form of an analysis of the verdict that granted pretrial requests outside the scope of the pretrial object in Verdict No. 2/Pid.Prap/2018/PN.Ende. This research employed two research problems, namely “The basis of legal considerations from pretrial judge who grants pretrial request in Verdict Number 2/Pid.Prap/2018/PN.Ende?.” And “The implications of pretrial Verdict Number 2/Pid.Prap/2018/PN.Ende?”. This research methods are used a normative juridical approach, where the data collection technique was in the form of legislation, books, internet, journals, and articles that supported this research. Then, the data from this rsearch was analyzed using the content analysis method in the verdict number 2/pid.prap/2018/PN.Ende. According to the results of the research, on the basis of legal judgments from the judges and the implications of the a quo verdict, it showed that judges had conducted a recht findings using the grammatical interpretation method for Article 1 number 10 jo 77 KUHAP, and the impact of this verdict could trigger the enthusiasm of those who had an interest in continually correcting the actions of law enforcement officers, which would hinder the law enforcement process in Indonesia. In conclusion, in broad outline that the Judge granted this pretrial request on three grounds and the judge argued that the investigation was a sub-part of the investigation process so that it could not be disclosed