p–ISSN: 2723 - 6609 e-ISSN: 2745-5254

Vol. 4, No. 8, August 2023 http://jist.publikasiindonesia.id/

Doi: 10.59141/jist.v4i8.684 1099

EXECUTION OF COURT DECISIONS IN THE FORM OF

CONFIRMATION OF NARCOTICS EVIDENCE FOR THE STATE (CASE

STUDY OF EXECUTION OF DECISION NO 39/PID.SUS/2020/PN, BYL)

Oki Suwandi

, Natangsa Surbakti

, Muchamad Iksan

Mulawarman University East Kalimantan, Indonesia

Email: [email protected]

, [email protected]

*Correspondence

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Accepted

: 10-08-2023

Revised

: 14-08-2023

Approved

: 15-08-2023

This research examines the perspective on the execution of court

decisions on narcotics evidence confiscated for the state. The purpose

of this study is to find out the implementation of the execution of seized

narcotics evidence for the State in terms of criminal law and Narcotics

Law. The research uses empirical and juridical approach methods. The

execution of the court's decision on narcotics evidence is contained in

ruling No. 39/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.BYL stated that the narcotics evidence

seized is for the state. The destruction of evidence of narcotics is

regulated in Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, and the

Attorney General's decision number: KEP-089/J.A/1988 concerning

Settlement of Confiscated Goods in Articles 12 to 14. The results of

this study show how the mechanism for completing the process of

confiscation of seized narcotics evidence for the state is viewed from

the perspective of criminal law. This researcher wants to explain what

is the mechanism for implementing criminal case decisions regarding

seized narcotic evidence for the State. Judging from the importance of

destroying narcotics confiscated goods, it is necessary to know the

procedure for destroying narcotics confiscated goods so that they are

more in line with the procedures described in the law. As stated that the

purpose of administering criminal procedural law in Law Number 8 of

1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is to achieve

and obtain or at least approach material truth (substantial truth) namely

the complete truth of a criminal incident by applying the provisions of

criminal procedure law honestly and appropriately.

Keywords: execution;

Narcotics evidence;

confiscation.

Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Introduction

Narcotics are substances or drugs derived from plants or non-plants, both

synthetic and semisynthetic, which can cause a decrease or change in consciousness,

loss of taste, and dependence, which are divided into groups as mentioned in the annex

to Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning narcotics (Masoara, 2017). Almost everyone

can certainly know that goods in the form of narcotics are prohibited in this country and

even the international world also prohibits illicit circulation and abuse of narcotics. But

even though narcotics are prohibited items, there are still many people involved in

narcotics cases, either planting, distributing, or consuming narcotics (Darwis,

Dalimunthe, & Riadi, 2017). However, the juridical reason that makes narcotics

forbidden is because of the large adverse effects (danger) caused by the abuse of

Oki Suwandi, Natangsa Surbakti, Muchamad Iksan

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1100

narcotics on human nerve cells, so that these narcotics become prohibited items to be

abused (Nurcahyo, Gurusi, Suhartono, & Ernawati, 2020).

To prevent and eradicate the abuse and circulation of narcotics that are very

detrimental and endanger the lives of the community, nation, and state, it is necessary to

change the regulation on narcotics (Hariyanto, 2018). To regulate efforts to eradicate

narcotics crimes, namely through the threat of criminal sanctions in the form of

imprisonment, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. In addition to some of the efforts

mentioned above, one of the efforts to eradicate narcotics is by confiscating or

confiscating evidence in narcotics crimes (Hartanto, 2017).

Destruction is a series of investigator actions to destroy confiscated goods, the

implementation of which is carried out after a determination from the local Chief

District Attorney to be destroyed and witnessed by officials representing, elements of

the Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Health, and the Food and Drug Supervisory

Agency (Hartanto, 2017). If the official element cannot be present, then the

extermination is witnessed by other parties, namely officials or members of the local

community. Article 60 of Law Number 22 of 1997 concerning Narcotics which was

updated in Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics Articles 91 and 92 regulate

the destruction of narcotics which one of the causes is related to criminal acts while the

destruction of psychotropic drugs related to criminal acts is regulated in Article 53 of

Law Number 5 of 1997 concerning Psychotropics (Eduward, Mulyadi, Ablisar, &

Purba, 2016).

Confiscated goods are narcotics and narcotic precursors or suspected narcotics

and narcotic precursors or containing narcotics and narcotic precursors and other

chemicals from narcotic crimes and narcotic precursors seized by the Investigator

(Herman, 2017). The destruction of narcotics evidence is regulated in Law Number 35

of 2009 concerning Narcotics and Regulation of the Head of the National Narcotics

Agency (BNN) Number 7 of 2010 concerning Technical Guidelines for Safe Handling

of Narcotic Confiscated Goods, Narcotic Precursors and Other Chemicals (Hariantika &

Sukinta, 2016).

In Indonesia, material criminal law is outlined in criminal law, both the Penal

Code and other special criminal laws that are not codified in the Criminal Code, while

formal criminal law is outlined in Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Law of Criminal

Procedure or better known as the Criminal Procedure Code (Sudaryono & Surbakti,

2017). Article 45 paragraph (4) of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Code of

Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) specifies that confiscated objects that are prohibited or

prohibited from being circulated, seized to be used for state interests or to be destroyed

(Yuniar Fadlilah, 2023). Included in the category of confiscated goods that are

prohibited from circulation include liquor, narcotics, psychotropics, weapons, and

explosives as well as books or pictures and other forms of items that fall into the group

of pornography.

Execution is to forcibly carry out a court decision with general force, to carry out

a court decision that has given permanent legal force. The court decision will have no

Execution Of Court Decisions In The Form Of Confirmation Of Narcotics Evidence For The

State (Case Study Of Execution Of Decision No 39/Pid.Sus/2020/Pn, Byl)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1101

meaning if the judgment (execution) is not carried out, as Yahya Harahap's opinion

expresses that execution is a general action carried out by the court to the losing party in

a case (Tolib Effendi, 2018). In carrying out the execution of court decisions in the form

of the seizure of narcotics evidence for the state, correct procedures are needed by

applicable law. The procedure for the execution of court decisions in the form of

confiscation of narcotics evidence for the state begins with the receipt of court decisions

by the competent authorities (Manurung, Syahrin, Ablisar, & Sunarmi, 2021).

The thought arises whether the purpose of the law has been achieved, as stated

that the purpose of implementing the criminal procedure law in Law Number 8 of 1981

concerning the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) is to achieve and obtain or at

least approach the material truth (substantial truth), namely the complete truth of a

criminal event by applying the provisions of the criminal procedure law honestly and

precisely (Sinaga, 2021).

Based on these provisions, what still needs to be clarified is the mechanism for

narcotics confiscated goods that can be destroyed or returned to the rightful or

confiscated State as stipulated in Article 101 of Law No. 35 of 2009 and the Criminal

Procedure Code, if we look back there is no difference between the Narcotics Law and

the Criminal Procedure Code which is the problem here is only the stage of execution

whether the goods are confiscated (destroyed) or confiscated for the State because the

content of the Act is like that if it is deprived of it for the country what kind of

mechanism. In this case, it is necessary to clarify whether the confiscated goods are

confiscated for the State which means whether it can be interpreted by the prosecutor's

office as the executor who handed over to the institution in need such as; Health Office,

Hospital or other health services.

Method

The approach used in this research is an empirical juridical approach to field

research, which examines applicable legal provisions and what happens in reality in

society. Empirical juridical research is legal research on the enactment or

implementation of normative legal provisions in action on any particular legal event that

occurs in society. This approach will be used in discussing research problems from the

perspective of applicable laws and regulations and their legal practice by the Boyolali

District Attorney's Office. Statue Approach by analyzing Indonesian laws and

regulations on the Execution of Verdicts of narcotics evidence seized for the state. In

addition to using a statutory approach (Statue Approach), this research will use a case

approach (Case Approach). This approach will examine case studies in Criminal Cases

on narcotics and the Execution of Verdicts on narcotics evidence seized for the state.

Or in other words, it is research conducted on the actual situation or real

conditions that occur in the community to know and find the facts and data needed, after

the required data is collected then leads to the identification of problems that ultimately

lead to solving the problem.

Oki Suwandi, Natangsa Surbakti, Muchamad Iksan

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1102

In addition, this study also used primary and secondary legal materials. The

primary legal material used is the Data Source consisting of primary legal material

which includes laws and regulations related to research such as the 1945 NRI

Constitution, the Criminal Code, Law No. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, Law No. 40

of 2013 concerning Government regulations concerning the technical implementation of

Law No. 35 of 2009, Law No. 16 of 2004 concerning the prosecutor's office, Law No. 8

of 1981, Attorney General Decree Number: KEP- 089 / J. A /8 / 1988, Minister of

Finance Regulation Number: 03 / PMK.06 / 2011 dated January 5, 2011, as well as

several other laws and regulations related to this research, and court decision No 39 /

Pid.Sus / 2020 / PN. BYL.

This research also uses descriptive research, which is a type of research that aims

to describe a phenomenon or event in detail and systematically. This research was

conducted by collecting data and information from various sources, such as

observations, interviews, and questionnaires. The main purpose of descriptive research is

to provide an objective picture of a phenomenon or event that occurs in criminal cases

regarding narcotics evidence seized for the state. In addition, the author also uses the

right sample or sample will also affect the results of the study.

Data collection techniques are carried out using literature studies and field

research with interview techniques. A literature study is a way of collecting data to

obtain data from sources that have relevance to the subject matter in the form of

regulations, books, documents, or literature. An interview was conducted with the

Boyolali District Attorney who was the executor in the verdict of the Narcotics case in

Boyolali.

The collection of legal materials is carried out through literature studies and

analyzed systematically using deductive and inductive legal arguments. Data collection

is carried out by reading, collecting, and classifying materials relevant to the research

topic. After that, the data were analyzed using deductive and inductive legal

argumentation methods. The deductive method is used to analyze primary and secondary

legal materials by looking at how the regulatory mechanism that explains the execution

of seized narcotics evidence for the state with the facts found in the study.

The results of the analysis of the above problems are then presented descriptively

in scientific articles. The analysis is carried out in a qualitative descriptive way, by

analyzing qualitative data from research results with qualitative analysis. and described

in the form of a comprehensive report for further conclusions will be drawn with

deductive methods to answer the problems in this study. Data analysis or the process of

converting research results into information that can be used to conclude is an activity

carried out to convert research results into information that can be used in concluding. In

this research, the author uses technical data analysis descriptive methods, by describing

what is in the field, ongoing processes, causes or effects that develop.

Results and Discussion

Execution Of Court Decisions In The Form Of Confirmation Of Narcotics Evidence For The

State (Case Study Of Execution Of Decision No 39/Pid.Sus/2020/Pn, Byl)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1103

Execution is the forcible execution of a court decision with general force, to carry

out a court decision that has given permanent legal force. In another sense, the

execution of a judgment or execution is already a common thing, which can be

concluded from the term by experts or experts, according to R. Subekti and Retno

Wulan Sutantio who took over the term "execution of judgment" as a substitute for the

term "execution" in which case the term or meaning of the execution of the judge's

decision has been considered as a standard term instead of execution.

Execution is a force with general force committed by the court to a party who is

proven wrong or lost in a trial, where the court decision has permanent legal force. In

addition, the court or judge is not only passing the decision, but the decision must be

enforceable or executed so that it can realize achievements as the obligations of the

parties listed in the decision.

Legally, the implementation of the decision is carried out by law enforcement,

namely prosecutors under the auspices of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of

Indonesia. Prosecutors are functional officials who are authorized by law to act as

public prosecutors and execute court decisions that have obtained permanent legal force

and other authorities under Law Number 16 of 2004. The current existence of the

Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia is Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning

the Prosecutor's Office. According to the provisions in Article 2 Paragraph (1) of the

Prosecutor's Law, it states that the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia is a

government institution that exercises State power in the field of prosecution and other

authorities based on the law.

The law does not specifically define expropriation. However, in the context of

criminal law, confiscation can be interpreted as the act of confiscation or expropriation

of goods by competent authorities, be it investigators, prosecutors, or courts, because

the goods are allegedly related to a criminal act or are the result of a criminal act

committed by someone. The act of deprivation is carried out as part of the process of

investigating or prosecuting the perpetrator of the crime and is carried out to collect

evidence or take possession of goods allegedly related to the criminal act. After the

legal process is completed, the seized items can be expropriated by the state or

auctioned for the benefit of the state. Regarding the processing mechanism for the

settlement of loot, it has been regulated in Circular Number: SE-03/B/B.5/8/1988

concerning the Settlement of Loot, which states that; The grace period for completing

the loot is limited to no later than 4 (four) months from the time the Court Decision

acquires permanent legal force. The grace period is binding and the procuratorate

should comply with it. According to Article 273 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

The authority of the prosecutor in executing court decisions is regulated in several

articles, namely Article 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the

implementation of court decisions that have obtained legal force is still carried out by

the prosecutor, for which the clerk sends a copy of the decision letter to him. Article 30

Oki Suwandi, Natangsa Surbakti, Muchamad Iksan

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1104

paragraph (3) letter (b) of Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's Office

of the Republic of Indonesia, states that in the criminal field, the prosecutor's office has

the duty and authority to carry out the determination of judges and court decisions that

obtain permanent legal force.

As well as Article 54 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning

Judicial Power, states that the implementation of court decisions in criminal cases is

carried out by prosecutors. State confiscated goods are evidence based on a Court

Decision that has permanent legal force and/or based on the determination of the Judge

is declared confiscated for the state. The rights and obligations of the community are a

habit that is not legalized by law, when the law legalizes the rights and obligations of

the community, it will be seen in the form of written regulations and promulgated so

that other parties know about it as well as in the judge's decision which reads that

narcotics seized for the state must have a definite legal basis

The process of destruction or seizure of narcotics evidence at the level of

investigation, prosecution, and judicial level, has indeed been mandated in the Criminal

Procedure Code, Law 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, so law enforcement officials

(criminal justice system) should not hesitate to carry out destruction. Any narcotics

evidence confiscated, recovered, and handed over by the public to the authorities must

be destroyed. The process of resolving the loot is quite clear, starting from the

investigation carried out by the police to the court’s decision

Based on Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, precisely in Article 101

paragraph 1 "Narcotics, Narcotic Precursors, and tools or goods used in the criminal act

of Narcotics and Narcotic Precursors or related to Narcotics and Narcotic Precursors

and the results are declared confiscated for the State". However, the law does not

explain the mechanism of the settlement of the loot, in the sense that the goods do not

know where to go. In this case, there are no rules governing the settlement of seized

goods for the State.

If we look at the general picture through the point of view of criminal law and the

Challenging Law, the general explanation of the execution of narcotics evidence seized

for the State is regulated in Law No. 35 of 2009 and Government Regulation of the

Republic of Indonesia Number 40 of 2015. that to implement the provisions of Article

32, Article 62, Article 89 paragraph (2), Article 90 paragraph (2), Article 94, Article

100 paragraph (2), and Article 101 paragraph (4) of Law Number 35 of 2009

concerning Narcotics, it is necessary to establish a Government Regulation on the

Implementation of Law Number 35 of 2009. In criminal law, the regulation of the

prosecutor as an executor regulated in Article 270 of the Criminal Code is the basis for

the authority of the prosecutor to act as an executor (executor of court decisions that

have obtained permanent legal force) as soon as possible to implement court decisions.

The current existence of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia is Law

Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's Office (Prosecutor's Law) According to

the provisions in Article 2 Paragraph (1) of the Prosecutor's Law, it is stated that the

Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia is a government institution that

Execution Of Court Decisions In The Form Of Confirmation Of Narcotics Evidence For The

State (Case Study Of Execution Of Decision No 39/Pid.Sus/2020/Pn, Byl)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1105

implements. instructions of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia. Number:

INS006/J.A17/1986 concerning the Implementation of Administration of state power in

the field of prosecution and other authorities under the Law.

When viewed from the provisions of the article above, especially Article 101 of

Law Number 35 of 2009, it is clear that Narcotics, Narcotic Precursors, and tools or

goods used in the criminal act of Narcotics and Narcotic Precursors or those involving

Narcotics and Narcotic Precursors and the results are declared confiscated for the state.

This is proof of the government's seriousness to provide a deterrent effect to the

community of drug offenders. In court decisions related to drug crimes, many judges

have determined the status of narcotics evidence seized for the State as ordered by law.

For example, Boyolali District Court Decision Number: No 39 / Pid.sus / 2020 / PN,

BYL in the decision, the judge handed down a verdict on narcotics evidence seized for

the state. Of course, the Judge considered that narcotics evidence was seized for the

state so that it would not be used again for illegal purposes, therefore the Judge decided

that narcotics evidence should be seized for the State.

Research conducted in the decision of the Boyolali District Court judge who in

consideration for Narcotics evidence stated that the loot for the State contradicted the

theory of legal certainty referring to article 101 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of

2009 concerning Narcotics which explained "Narcotics, Narcotics Precursors and tools

or goods used in Narcotics and Narcotics Precursors or transporting Narcotics and

Narcotics precursors and the result is declared confiscated for the State" while based on

the legal facts in the trial, that the evidence is directly related to narcotics, while in the

judge's consideration refers to the provisions of article 101 paragraph (1) of Law

Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics stipulates that all evidence in the case is

declared seized for the State.

But in the ruling, the evidence seized by the State resulted in or caused the

prosecutor as the executor difficulty in executing the narcotics seized by the State,

because Article 273 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code explains "Regarding

the criminal execution of confiscation of evidence, the Prosecutor empowers the object

at the state auction office within a grace period of 3 months to be sold and can be

extended by another one month, and the proceeds are entered into the state treasury in

the name of the Prosecutor".

Even though it has been regulated correctly and follows the applicable legal rules,

the facts in the field are found that the implementation does not work this way. This can

be known from the length of completion of the booty. One of the reasons is that the

District Attorney as the party who completed the loot in the form of narcotics does not

know the mechanism or procedure for auctioning loot in the form of narcotics that has

been decided in court. Regulation of the Minister of Finance Number: 03 / PMK.06 /

2011 dated January 5, 2011, concerning Management of State Property derived from

State Spoils and Gratuity Goods. Article 15 paragraph (4) point C is excluded from the

provisions as referred to in paragraph (1) for State loot in the form of other than land

Oki Suwandi, Natangsa Surbakti, Muchamad Iksan

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1106

and/or buildings that are prohibited from circulating generally by statutory provisions,

the settlement can be destroyed. However, with the regulation from the minister of

finance, which means that narcotics evidence seized by the State can be destroyed

immediately, the implication is that the verdict directly states that the confiscated goods

must be destroyed. But the ruling stated that confiscated goods were first confiscated by

the State. Even regarding evidence, there are already 3 rules (destroyed, confiscated for

the State, and returned to the rightful person).

The execution of court decisions in the form of confiscation of narcotics evidence

for the state is one form of criminal punishment given to drug offenders. This action is

carried out as an effort to prevent the misuse of narcotics evidence that has been

confiscated by the authorities (Hartanto 2017). From a criminal perspective, the seizure

of narcotics evidence for the state is a legal act and is regulated in Law Number 35 of

2009 concerning Narcotics. The implementation of this act of deprivation must be

carried out.

The discrepancy between the decision of the Boyolali District Court judge

regarding evidence in the form of Narcotics seized for the State referring to Article 101

paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics explains "That

Narcotics, Narcotics Precursors and tools or goods used in Narcotics crimes and

Narcotics precursors or transporting narcotics and Narcotics precursors and the proceeds

are seized for the State, based on referring to Article 101, the judge determines that all

evidence in the case seized for the State is true.

Although it has been arranged ideally, the facts in the field found that the

implementation did not work that way. With the implementation of regulations, the

settlement of the destruction of loot or confiscation of narcotics takes a very long time,

namely one year. Because this can be known from the length of completion of the

booty. One of the reasons is that the District Attorney's Office as the party that

completes the loot in the form of narcotics does not know the mechanism or procedure

for auctioning loot in the form of narcotics that has been decided in court. In executing

narcotics evidence verdicts seized for the state, the application of legal certainty is very

important to ensure that the execution process is carried out, definitely, and by

applicable legal regulations.

Conclusion

The execution of the Boyolali district court decision in the form of a criminal case

of confiscation of narcotics evidence seized for the state, several things need to be

considered so that the execution action can be carried out effectively and efficiently.

The prosecution must ensure that the execution process is carried out carefully, and

professionally, and follows applicable legal regulations. Law enforcement by the judge

on evidence of narcotics crimes in the Boyolali District Court Judge's Decision in his

consideration that the evidence presented by the Public Prosecutor before the court and

confirmed by the defendant is a tool or item used in narcotics crimes referring to Article

101 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics explains "That

Execution Of Court Decisions In The Form Of Confirmation Of Narcotics Evidence For The

State (Case Study Of Execution Of Decision No 39/Pid.Sus/2020/Pn, Byl)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1107

Narcotics, Narcotics precursors and tools or goods used in Narcotics and Narcotics

precursors or those involving narcotics and Narcotics precursors and the results seized

for the State have no legal certainty.

The implementation of the execution of narcotics evidence seized for the state

carried out by the Boyolali State Prosecutor's Office has so far not been effective, this is

due to the length of time for the issuance of loot destruction permits from the Attorney

General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, Determination of the physical condition

of loot in the form of narcotics from the competent authorities, which is needed which is

related to the process of completing the destruction of loot that has permanent legal

force. The prosecutor as the executor has also sent letters to various institutions that

need narcotics as research material as well as no response from the institution. Obstacles

in executing narcotics evidence seized for the State are juridical and non-juridical

obstacles. Juridical obstacles include a. ineffective application of article 45 paragraph

(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), b There are no special rules

governing loot in the form of narcotics seized for the State in the Criminal Procedure

Code.

Oki Suwandi, Natangsa Surbakti, Muchamad Iksan

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1108

Bibliography

Darwis, Ahmad, Dalimunthe, Gabena Indrayani, & Riadi, Sulaiman. (2017). Narkoba,

Bahaya Dan Cara Mengantisipasinya. Amaliah: Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada

Masyarakat, 1(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.32696/ajpkm.v1i1.14

Eduward, Eduward, Mulyadi, Mahmud, Ablisar, Madiasa, & Purba, Hasim. (2016).

Eksekusi Barang Bukti Tindak Pidana Narkotika yang Dirampas untuk Negara

(Studi Putusan Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Balige). USU Law Journal, 4(2), 131–

141.

Hariantika, Rachma Dewi, & Sukinta, Bambang Dwi Baskoro. (2016). Proses

Pemusnahan Barang Bukti Narkoba Sebelum Putusan Hakim Di Wilayah Hukum

Polretbes Semarang. Diponegoro Law Journal, 5(4), 1–20.

Hariyanto, Bayu Puji. (2018). Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan peredaran narkoba di

Indonesia. Jurnal Daulat Hukum, 1(1).

Hartanto, Wenda. (2017). Penegakan hukum terhadap kejahatan narkotika dan obat-obat

terlarang dalam era perdagangan bebas internasional yang berdampak pada

keamanan dan kedaulatan negara. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 14(1), 1–16.

Herman, Yosia. (2017). Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Pemusnahan Barang Bukti

Narkotika Ditinjau Dari UU No. 35 Tahun 2009 Tentang Narkotika. Lex

Privatum, 5(2).

Manurung, Frengky, Syahrin, Alvi, Ablisar, Madiasa, & Sunarmi, Sunarmi. (2021).

Disparitas Putusan Hakim Terhadap Tindak Pidana Narkotika Di Wilayah Hukum

Pengadilan Negeri Rantauprapat (Studi Kasus Putusan No. 159/PID.

SUS/2019/PN. RAP dan Putusan NO. 626/PID. SUS/2020/PN. RAP). Law

Jurnal, 2(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.46576/lj.v2i1.1451

Masoara, Sri Yulianty. (2017). Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Penyalahgunaan Komix

Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 Tentang Narkotika. Lex Crimen,

6(9).

Nurcahyo, Edy, Gurusi, La, Suhartono, Rizki Mustika, & Ernawati, Ernawati. (2020).

Penyuluhan Hukum Tentang Bahaya Narkoba Di Sma Negeri 4 Pasarwajo

Kabupaten Buton. Empowerment: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat, 3(02), 117–

122. https://doi.org/10.25134/empowerment.v3i02.3608

Sinaga, Haposan Sahala Raja. (2021). Penerapan Restorative Justice Dalam Perkara

Narkotika di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 2(7), 528–541.

Sudaryono, Sudaryono, & Surbakti, Natangsa. (2017). Hukum Pidana Dasar-Dasar

Hukum Pidana Berdasarkan KUHP dan RUU KUHP.

Tolib Effendi, S. H. (2018). Sistem Peradilan Pidana: perbandingan komponen dan

proses sistem peradilan pidana di beberapa negara. MediaPressindo.

Execution Of Court Decisions In The Form Of Confirmation Of Narcotics Evidence For The

State (Case Study Of Execution Of Decision No 39/Pid.Sus/2020/Pn, Byl)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 4, No. 8, Agustus 2023 1109

Yuniar Fadlilah, Amalia. (2023). Pelaksanaan Pengembalian Barang Bukti Dalam

Penyelesaian Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencurian Di Kejaksaan Negeri Jambi.

Universitas Jambi.