Implementation of Legal Certainty, Justice, and Expediency in the Pretrial Case of the Alleged Criminal Offense of Misusing the Transportation of Fuel Oil (Study of the Decision Number 21/Pid.Pra/2022/PN Kpg and Number 22/Pid.Pra/2022/PN Kpg)

After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 dated April 28, 2015, the authority of pretrial object in Article 77 of KUHAP has expanded to include testing the validity of the determination of a suspect. This has also been confirmed in the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016 concerning Prohibition of Review of Pretrial Decision Article (2) number (1) letter (a) which explicitly or explicitly states that the object of pretrial includes the validity of the determination of a suspect. This study aims to analyze the judge's decision in the pretrial case of alleged criminal acts of misusing the transportation of fuel oil in accordance or not with the aspects of legal certainty, justice, and benefit as using normative legal research methods. The results of the study found that pretrial decisions Number 21/Pid.Pra/2022/PN.Kpg and Number 22/Pid.Pra/2022/PN.Kpg were in accordance or based on aspects of certainty, justice, and legal benefits. The suggestion given by the author is the need for preventive efforts in the form of dismissal and impeachment of the law done by the law enforcement agency, the Police and the Prosecutor’s Office about the regulation of the abuse of oil fuel transportation (BBM) and also the need to do a repressive effort of giving a sanction explicitly for those who deliberately take legal action to smuggle oil fuel (BBM).