https://jurnal.uit.ac.id/JPetitum <p><strong>PETITUM,&nbsp;</strong>adalah peer-review ilmiah yang diterbitkan oleh&nbsp;Magister Hukum Universitas Indonesia Timur, yang diterbitkan setiap 6 (Enam) Bulanan yaitu pada bulan April dan Oktober, sebagai sarana dalam menyebarkan gagasan atau pemikiran yang dihasilkan melalui kegiatan akademik dalam pengembangan di bidang Hukum Tata Negara, Hukum Pidana dan Hukum Perdata</p> <p>&nbsp;(<strong>P-ISSN</strong>: <a href="http://u.lipi.go.id/1382356643" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2339-2320</a>), (<strong>E-ISSN</strong>: <a href="http://u.lipi.go.id/1563518766">2716-0017</a>)</p> Magister Ilmu Hukum Universitas Indonesia Timur en-US PETITUM 2339-2320 https://jurnal.uit.ac.id/JPetitum/article/view/1535 <p><em>The results of the study show that the application of Article 111 paragraph (2) of the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics in decision number 122/pid.Sus/2022/PN.Tka is inappropriate because the judge should have considered the element of criminal conspiracy because in the case in question there was more than one perpetrator (delnemiing) as regulated in Article 1 number (18) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. And the formulation of the indictment made by the public prosecutor is an unclear indictment (obscure liebels). Because the legal facts and the imposition of the article do not match. The appropriate article to apply in this case is Article 114 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 25 of 2009 concerning narcotics Jo. Article 132 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law, because based on the data and facts obtained by the author, the case constitutes a criminal conspiracy to commit the crime of buying and acting as an intermediary for the sale and purchase of class I narcotics of the plant type marijuana.</em></p> Amiruddin Pabbu Andi Tanwir Mappanyukki Wardiansyah Alamsyah ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2026-03-27 2026-03-27 14 01 1 6 10.36090/jh.v14i02.1535 https://jurnal.uit.ac.id/JPetitum/article/view/1583 <p><em>This study aims to analyze the legal provisions governing the termination of investigations in the Indonesian criminal justice system and to evaluate their implementation in ensuring legal certainty for the parties involved. The research focuses on the termination of an investigation (SP3) related to an alleged property damage case reported by Jimmy as the complainant. The research examines three main aspects: the legal basis for terminating the investigation, the decision-making process, and the legal implications for the complainant and the suspect. This research uses a normative legal method with a qualitative approach by examining the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the Regulation of the Chief of Police Number 6 of 2019, and relevant legal literature. The results indicate that the termination of the investigation in this case was not carried out in accordance with applicable legal and procedural standards. The investigators did not provide an objective explanation regarding the legal basis for the termination, there was a lack of transparency in the evaluation of evidence, and no indication of the prosecutor’s involvement as the case controller. Moreover, important documents such as the investigation summary and SP2HP were not provided to the complainant, resulting in legal uncertainty and potentially weakening public trust in law enforcement institutions.</em></p> Laura Azani Patawari Patawari Asba Hamid Amiruddin Pabbu Abd Basir ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2026-03-27 2026-03-27 14 01 7 19 10.36090/jh.v14i02.1583