T The determination of the pretrial institution\\\'s relative competence is not expressly regulated in the criminal procedure code. article 84 paragraph (1) of the criminal procedure code applies to the main examination, while the pretrial is only a test of the validity or otherwise of the actions of law enforcement officers as regulated in article 77 of the criminal procedure code in conjunction with constitutional court decision number 21/puu-xii/2014. with quasi-civil characteristics, the determination of relative competence often refers to the principle of the respondent\\\'s legal domicile. the purpose of this study is to examine the benchmarks in determining the relative competence of the pretrial institution and to analyze the suitability of the sole judge\\\'s considerations in decision number 1/pid.pra/2023/pn.nab based on applicable legal practices and provisions. this study uses a normative legal research method using secondary data and analyzed qualitatively. the results of the study indicate that the determination of pretrial relative competence is benchmarked on the principle of the respondent\\\'s legal domicile which has been recognized in practice, the place where the legal action was carried out and the place where the object was physically confiscated. in decision number 1/pid.pra/2023/pn.nab, the judge rejected the respondent\\\'s exception with a different opinion, but the author believes that the sole judge\\\'s consideration is inconsistent with applicable practices and provisions regarding relative competence to examine pretrial applications. the author\\\'s analysis shows that the district court authorized to examine this application is the sidoarjo district court based on the principle of the respondent\\\'s legal domicile and the surabaya district court based on the location where the wooden container was physically seized. therefore, the nabire district court is not authorized to examine the pretrial application.the determination of the pretrial institution\\\'s relative competence is not expressly regulated in the criminal procedure code. article 84 paragraph (1) of the criminal procedure code applies to the main examination, while the pretrial is only a test of the validity or otherwise of the actions of law enforcement officers as regulated in article 77 of the criminal procedure code in conjunction with constitutional court decision number 21/puu-xii/2014. with quasi-civil characteristics, the determination of relative competence often refers to the principle of the respondent\\\'s legal domicile. the purpose of this study is to examine the benchmarks in determining the relative competence of the pretrial institution and to analyze the suitability of the sole judge\\\'s considerations in decision number 1/pid.pra/2023/pn.nab based on applicable legal practices and provisions. this study uses a normative legal research method using secondary data and analyzed qualitatively. the results of the study indicate that the determination of pretrial relative competence is benchmarked on the principle of the respondent\\\'s legal domicile which has been recognized in practice, the place where the legal action was carried out and the place where the object was physically confiscated. in decision number 1/pid.pra/2023/pn.nab, the judge rejected the respondent\\\'s exception with a different opinion, but the author believes that the sole judge\\\'s consideration is inconsistent with applicable practices and provisions regarding relative competence to examine pretrial applications. the author\\\'s analysis shows that the district court authorized to examine this application is the sidoarjo district court based on the principle of the respondent\\\'s legal domicile and the surabaya district court based on the location where the wooden container was physically seized. therefore, the nabire district court is not authorized to examine the pretrial application.