Ratio Decidendi Judges Decide Perpetrators of Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Crimes Associated by The Implementation of Advocate Immunity Rights (Analysis of Decision No. 78/PK.Pid.Sus/2021).1
Keywords:
Ratio, Decidendi, Obstruction, Law EnforcementAbstract
Abstract
Corruption is one of the problems faced in Indonesia, one of its, obstruction/inhibiting the law enforcement process carried out by advocates. Many advocates in Indonesia are trapped in legal problems, especially those related to obstruction of justice when carrying out their profession, because there are no clear paramaters as to the extent to which the immunity rights possessed by advocates are enforced to protect advocates when carrying out their profession. In this normative juridicaal researh, the obstruction of justice is discussed in the provisions of Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. The results of the research problem are two main things that can be concluded. First, that the application of Obstruction of justice in a broad sense can be applied to people who provided advice, ideas, advice, opinions, considerations or suggestions to perpetrators of criminal acts. Meanwhile, the act of an advocate should be suspected of committing a criminal act of obstruction of justice ih the act committed is not related to his porfessional duties and is note based on goodfaith. The second, that ratio decidendi of the juducial review councel overrides the juridical aspects related to legal facts that show the profession of the accused as an advocate should serve as a burdensome.
References
Referencer / Bibliography :
Arief Sidharta, Revitasi Pemikiran Prof. Soediman Kartohadiprodjo tentang Pancasila Berkaitan dengan Pengembangan Sistem Hukum Nasional, Bandung, (Orasi Ilmiah disampaikan pada Dies Natalis ke-51), FH. UNPAR, 2009
Bambang Sutiyoso, Metode Penemuan Hukum, Yogyakarta, UII Press, 2019
Bernard Arief Sidharta, Refleksi Tentang Struktur Ilmu Hukum, Bandung, Mandar Maju, 1999
Imam Anshori Saleh, Konsep Pengawasan Kehakiman, Malang, Setara Press, 2014
K Wantjik Saleh, Kehakiman dan Keadilan, Jakarta, Ghalia Indonesia, 1977
M. Yahya Harahap, Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP: Penyidikan dan Penuntutan, Jakarta, Sinar grafika, 2009
Mardjono Reksodiputro, Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia (Melihat Kepada Kejahatan dan Penegakan Hukum Dalam Batas-Batas Toleransi), Fakultas Hukum Unversitas Indonesia, 1993
Mezak, M. H. (2006). Jenis, Metode dan Pendekatan Dalam Penelitian Hukum
Moh Mahfud M.D, Politik Hukum Untuk Independensi Lembaga Peradilan, Yogyakarta, (Jurnal Hukum), Nomor 9 Vol.6, UII, 997
Notohamidjojo, Demi Keadilan dan Kemanusiaan, Jakarta, BPK Gunung Mulia, 1995
Parjaman, T., & Akhmad, D. (2019). Pendekatan Penelitian Kombinasi: Sebagai “Jalan Tengah†Atas Dikotomi Kuantitatif-Kualitatif. Moderat: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pemerintahan, 5(4), 530-548.
Philip Nonet & Philip Selznik, Law and Society in Transtition Toward Responsive Law, Harper and Row, New York, 1978
Romli Atmasasmita, Sistem Peradilan Pidana (Criminal Justice System) Perspektif Eksistensialisme Dan Abolisionalisme, Jakarta, Penerbit Bina Cipta, 1996
Satjipto Rahardjo, Hukum Dalam Jagat Ketertiban, Jakarta, UKI Press, 2006,
--------------------, Lapisan-lapisan Dalam Studi Hukum, Malang, Bayumedia Publishing, 2009
---------------------, Biarkan Hukum Mengalir, Jakarta, Penerbit Buku Kompas, 2007
Solehoddin, Menakar Hak Imunitas Profesi Advokat, Rechtldee Jurnal Hukum, Vol. 10 Nomor 1, Juni 2015. Fakultas Hukum Widyagama, Malang, 2015
Tolib Effendi, Sistem Peradilan Pidana: Perbandingan Komponen dan Proses Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Beberapa Negara, Yogyakara, Pustaka Yustisia, 2013, hlm. 145
Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Pasal 1 ayat (1) tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman
