Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"In reaching a decision, a judge shall not only view and refer to the written regulation in prevailing (positive) law, but also reflect on rules or customs and other values as living laws in the society. This is what can be observed from the Decision Number 247/Pid/B/2012/PN.Pdg which imposes penal sanction of imprisonment to a junevile offender, even though the public prosecutor's indictments are not proven in court. Judge gives the junevile a sentence since he had violated the Minangkabau criminal adat law. The arising questions are: 1) what is the consideration of the judge in imposing penal sanction in criminal adat law case committed by a junevile?; and 2) how to link the implementation of criminal adat law to the judicial lawmaking? The purpose of this analysis is identify the basic consideration of the judge in ruling the criminal case of adat law and explain about the relationship between the implementation of traditional criminal law with the judicial lawmaking. The consideration of the judge in making the decision and imposing criminal sanction is based on the formal juridicial and non-juridicial reasons and unwritten rules. In this respect, it shall be in accordance with the provisions in Emergency Law Number 1 year 1951, Article 5, paragraph (3), letter b, and article 10, paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 year 2009 on Judiciary Power."

"ABSTRAK Pemberantasan korupsi di Indonesia masih menghadapi banyak kendala, salah satu diantaranya adalah perlawanan dari berbagai pihak dalam bentuk obstruction of justice yang dilakukan oleh advokat. Advokat dalam menjalankan tugas profesinya mempunyai hak imunitas, yakni hak untuk tidak dapat dituntut baik secara perdata maupun pidana. Namun dalam praktiknya hak imunitas tersebut seperti tidak ada gunanya selama perbuatan advokat memenuhi unsur-unsur pasal dalam suatu ketentuan pidana seperti obstruction of justice, sehingga hal tersebut menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum bagi advokat dalam menjalankan tugas profesinya. Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengetahui dan memahami bentuk-bentuk obstruction of justice dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia khususnya dalam pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi, pengaturan dan penerapan hak imunitas advokat sebagai pelaku obstruction of justice, serta praktik penegakan hukum terhadap advokat sebagai pelaku tindak pidana obstruction of justice dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi. Dalam penelitian ini, jenis Penelitian yang digunakan adalah Yuridis Normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan sejarah, undang-undang dan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa bentuk obstruction of justice dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia adalah segala perbuatan yang dimaksudkan dengan mencegah, mengganggu, menghalangi, atau menggagalkan proses peradilan. Hak imunitas advokat diatur dalam Pasal 14 hingga Pasal 16 Undang-Undang Advokat, akan tetapi dalam praktiknya advokat sebagai pelaku obstruction of justice tetap dapat dimintai pertanggungjawabannya terlepas dari hak imunitas yang dimilikinya. Serta penegakan hukum terhadap advokat sebagai pelaku obstruction of justice dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi telah dilakukan di Indonesia, dapat dilihat dari kasus Manatap Ambarita, M. Hasan bin Khusi Mohammad, R. Azmi bin Moh. Yusof dan Fredrich Yunadi. 

---

ABSTRACT

Eradication of corruption in Indonesia still faces many obstacles, one of them is resistance from various parties in the form of obstruction of justice carried out by advocates. Advocates in carrying out their professional duties have the right to immunity, namely the right not to be prosecuted both in civil or criminal terms. However, in practice the right of immunity is useless as long as an advocate's actions fulfill the elements of the article in a criminal provision such as obstruction of justice, so that it creates legal uncertainty for advocates in carrying out their professional duties. This research is aimed at knowing and understanding forms of obstruction of justice in Indonesian laws and regulations, especially in eradicating criminal acts of corruption, regulation and the application of the rights of immunity of advocates as subject of obstruction of justice, as well as law enforcement practices against lawyers as subject of criminal acts of obstruction of justice in cases of corruption. In this study, the type of research used was normative juridical using a historical, legal and conceptual approach. The results of the study concluded that the form of obstruction of justice in the laws and regulations in Indonesia is all actions intended to prevent, interfere, obstruct, or frustrate the judicial process. The rights of the advocate's immunity are regulated in Article 14 to Article 16 of the Law on Advocates, but in practice advocates as subject of obstruction of justice can still be held accountable regardless of the right of immunity they have. And law enforcement for lawyers as obstruction of justice subject in cases of corruption has been committed in Indonesia, can be seen from the case of Manatap Ambarita, M. Hasan bin Khusi Mohammad, R. Azmi bin Moh. Yusof and Fredrich Yunadi.

"