KEDUDUKAN SURAT PEMBERITAHUAN DIMULAINYA PENYIDIKAN (SPDP) DALAM PENANGANAN PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA UMUM DI WILAYAH HUKUM PENGADILAN NEGERI BANDA ACEH (Suatu Tinjauan Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 130/PUU-XIII/2015 Tanggal 11 Januari 2017) Eddi Maulizar Dahlan M. Jafar ABSTRAK Pasal 109 ayat (1) KUHAP menyatakan “dalam hal penyidik telah memulai melakukan penyidikan suatu peristiwa yang merupakan tindak pidana, penyidik memberitahukan hal itu kepada penuntut umum”. Dalam penjelasan pasal ini tidak ditentukan jangka waktu yang pasti kapan SPDP harus diserahkan. Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dalam Putusannya No.130/PUU-XIII/2015 tanggal 11 Januari 2017 menyatakan Pasal 109 ayat (1) KUHAP bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 serta tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat jika frasa “penyidik memberitahukan hal itu kepada penuntut umum” tidak dimaknai penyidik wajib memberitahukan dan menyerahkan SPDP kepada penuntut umum, terlapor dan korban paling lambat 7 hari sejak dikeluarkan surat perintah penyidikan (Sprindik). Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menjelaskan kedudukan SPDP sebelum dan sesudah adanya Putusan MK, kedudukan Jaksa dikaitkan dengan asas “Dominus Litis” dalam penyidikan perkara tindak pidana umum, serta akibat hukum dan urgensi hukum atas Putusan MK oleh penyidik dan Jaksa di Wilayah Hukum Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum yuridis normatif, yaitu difokuskan untuk mengkaji penerapan kaidah atau norma dalam hukum positif. Sumber data penelitian ini adalah data sekunder, yang diperoleh dari penelitian kepustakaan berupa buku-buku, peraturan perundang-undangan, jurnal dan artikel hukum, laporan hasil penelitian, internet dan bahan lainnya yang meliputi bahan hukum primair, skunder dan tersier dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan kedudukan SPDP sebelum adanya putusan MK menghadapi polemik kapan waktu yang jelas SPDP harus dilimpahkan penyidik kepada Kejaksaan. Setelah lahir putusan MK, SPDP wajib diserahkan dalam waktu tidak lebih 7 hari sejak dikeluarkannya Sprindik, dengan penambahan frasa “SPDP juga wajib diserahkan kepada terlapor dan pelapor. Kedudukan Jaksa dikaitkan dengan asas “Dominus Litis” dalam penyidikan perkara pidana pasca Putusan MK semakin meneguhkan prinsip bahwa Jaksa selaku pengendali perkara yang dimaknai sebagai bentuk pengawasan horizontal atas kinerja penyidik sejak awal penyidikan. Akibat hukum yang timbul atas tidak dilaksanakannya putusan MK ini, adanya praperadilan yang dimohonkan terlapor ataupun pelapor. Disarankan pembentuk undang-undang segera mengesahkan RUU KUHAP, dengan menyelaraskan isi putusan MK tersebut dalam RUU KUHAP, dan termasuk pula penyelarasan asas “Dominus Litis” terkait kedudukan Jaksa. Jika praperadilan bisa dijadikan sebagai konsekuensi hukum, maka atas perluasan objek praperadilan ini, Pasal 77 KUHAP perlu segera diselaraskan dalam RUU KUHAP. Kata Kunci: Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, SPDP, Penyidik dan Jaksa   THE POSITION OF THE NOTIFICATION LETTER OF COMMENCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION (SPDP) IN HANDLING GENERAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN THE LEGAL JURISDICTION OF BANDA ACEH DISTRICT COURT (The study on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015 of January 11, 2017) Eddi Maulizar Dahlan M. Jafar ABSTRACT The Article 109 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Code stated that ““in term of the investigator has started investigation of the case which is include as criminal act, investigator notifies the public prosecutor about it”. In the explanation of this article, there is no definite period of time when the Notification Letter of Commencement of investigation (SPDP) must be submitted. The Constitutional Court in its decision No. 130/PUU-XIII/2015 of January 11, 2017 stated that Article 109 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force if the phrase “the Investigator notifies public prosecutor about it” is not meant that the investigator is obliged to notify and submit SPDP to the public prosecutor, the reported person and the victim no later than seven days after the investigation warrant was issued (Sprindik). The purpose of this study is to analyze and describe about the position of SPDP before and after the existence of Constitutional Court Decision, the position of the Prosecutor related to the principle of "Dominus Litis" in investigating cases of general criminal offenses, as well as the legal consequences and legal urgency of Constitutional Court Decision by investigators and prosecutors in legal jurisdiction of Banda Aceh District Court. The method used in this research is normative juridical legal research which is focused on reviewing the application of rules or norms in positive law. Source of data of this research is secondary data that is obtained by conducting library research such as legal textbooks, legislations, journal and legal article, research reports, internet and other material which include primary legal materials, secondary and tertiary with statutory approach. The results of this study shows that the position of SPDP before existence of Constitutional Court Decision faced the polemic on when the clear time for SPDP to be delegated by investigators to the Attorney General's Office. After the existence of Constitutional Court Decision, SPDP should be submitted within no later than seven days from the issuance of Sprindik, with the addition of phrases “SPDP also must be submitted to the reported party and the victim. Position of the prosecutor related to the principle of "Dominus Litis" in criminal case investigations after the Constitutional Court Decision more affirms principle that the prosecutor as case controller which is interpreted as a form of horizontal supervision on the performance of investigators since the beginning of the investigation. Legal consequences arise from this Constitutional Court's decision which was not implemented, the pre-trial that was requested by the reported party or the reporting party. It is suggested that the legislator immediately passed RUU KUHAP, by harmonizing the contents of the Constitutional Court's decision in RUU KUHAP, and also including the harmonization of the principle of "Dominus Litis" regarding the position of the Prosecutor. If pretrial can be used as a legal consequence, then on the expansion of this pretrial object, Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code needs to be immediately harmonized in RUU KUHAP. Keywords: Constitutional Court Decision, SPDP, Investigators and Prosecutors.