Changes in Pretrial Authority through the Decision of the Constitutional Court

Pretrial authority underwent changes in authority through the Constitutional Court Decision. This research aims to examine and analyze several judicial reviews of pretrial objects, consisting of Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, Constitutional Court Decision Number 109/PUU-XIII/2015, Constitutional Court Decision Number 102/PUU-XIII/ 2015 & Constitutional Court Decision Number 130/PUU-XIII/2015, which as a whole, the a quo decision changes pre-trial authority. The formulation of the problem in this research is 1). What is the role of the Constitutional Court in making legal breakthroughs regarding pretrial? 2). What are the dynamics and issues behind the Constitutional Court's decision in changing pre-trial authority? The research method used in this research uses doctrinal legal research methodology. This research concludes that: 1). The role of the Constitutional Court in making legal breakthroughs regarding pre-trial can be seen in, first: the Constitutional Court determines that the determination of suspects is included in the object of pre-trial. Second: The Constitutional Court limits the scope of pre-trial material law to the position of KPK investigators which cannot be equated with POLRI investigators, that KPK investigators stand alone with Law no. 30 of 2003 as amended in Law no. 19 of 2019 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission. Third: ending the multiple interpretations of judges, discontinuing pre-trial applications when the case has been examined or entered the main case. Fourth: the submission of a notification letter for the start of an investigation is extended not only to the public prosecutor, but also to the suspect and the reporter/victim. 2). The dynamics and issues behind the Constitutional Court's decision in changing pre-trial authority, namely related to pre-trial authority in determining suspects, the dismissal of pre-trial petitions, the submission of SPDP, the entire Constitutional Court's decision has not been followed up in the form of a revision of the law