Among many problems that the Indonesian Judiciary practice has encountered, one problem that has been persistently discussed is regarding whether or not can the status of a suspect be used as a pretrial object outside of Article 77 letters (a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, either through pretrial judge decisions or decisions of the Constitutional Court. From these problems, the author formulated a study on what are the Impact of the Decision of the Judge Adjudicating the Pre-Trial Session outside the Reasons stipulated by law and how the reconstruction of regulations on the authority of judges in adjudicating justice-based pretrial applications can be realized. The research method used is juridical empirical combining doctrinal and non-doctrinal approaches, by operating legal principles and norms to see the normative dimensions of judge's decision, combined with the assumption approach that statutory regulations, including judge's decision, are not under empty space, but exists in a complex reality. The result shows that the legal function established by the Criminal Procedure Code is directed at realizing legal certainty rather than justice so that judges tend to obey conventional procedural law rather than having to be progressive. The limitations of pretrial authority and the lack of courage of judges to protect the rights of suspects have made pretrial institutions less able to protect suspects from possible violations of their juridical rights. To overcome these problems, reconstruction is carried out by clarifying and amending the joint decree (SKB) of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and the Chair of KY RI No. .047 / KMA / SKB / IV / 2009 and 02 / SKB / P.KY / IV / 2009 in addition to add one provision between letter b) and letter c) to Article 82 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and adding 2 (two) paragraphs in Article 1 number 10 in conjunction with Article 77 KUHAP jo. The Decision of the Constitutional Court No.21 / PUU-XII / 2015, by means of reasoning or interpreting a contrario (In Contrary) to the provisions of Article 1 point 10 jo. Article 77 KUHAP jo. The existing Constitutional Court Decision No.21 / PUU-XII / 2015.