Analisis Alasan Kasasi Penuntut Umum Terhadap Putusan Judex Facti Membebaskan Terdakwa Dalam Perkara Pembalakan Liar
(Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 928 K/PID.SUS-LH/2017)
Total View This Week0
Total View This Week0
Institusion
Universitas Kristen Indonesia
Author
Wau, Philipus Pustardos
Subject
Investigation of crimes. Examination and identification of prisoners
Datestamp
2020-02-20 08:43:36
Abstract :
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa alasan Kasasi Penuntut Umum judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Donggala telah salah menerapkan hukum, karena tidak mempertimbangkan dengan benar fakta hukum yang terungkap di persindangan yakni Terdakwa membeli kayu dalam bentuk bantalan sebanyak 80 batang dari Saudara Herman. Kayu tersebut disimpan di tempat industri pengolahan kayu UD. Sabar Jaya Sentosa milik Terdakwa tanpa disertai dengan Surat atau Dokumen SKAU (Surat Keterangan Asal Usul). Terdakwa telah melanggar ketentuan yang temuat dalam Pasal 87 Ayat (1) huruf a Jo. Pasal 12 huruf k Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Pengerusakan Hutan. Alasan Kasasi Penuntut Umum telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 253 ayat (1) huruf a KUHAP serta pertimbangan didasarkan pada kekeliruan judex facti tidak cermat mempertimbangkan faktafakta sebagaimana disebutkan di atas. Mahkamah Agung kemudian membatalkan Pengadilan Negeri Donggala Nomor 199/Pid.Sus/2016/PN.Dgl tanggal 05 Januari 2017. Mahkamah Agung mengadili sendiri perkara tersebut yang pada pokoknya menyatakan Terdakwa Tasbidin Alias Pete terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana ?Dengan sengaja membeli hasil hutan kayu yang di duga berasal dari hasil pembalakan liar? dan menjatuhkan pidana kepada Terdakwa tersebut oleh karena itu dengan pidana penjara selama 6 (enam) bulan dan pidana denda sejumlah Rp. 1.000.000.000 (satu miliar rupiah) dengan ketentuan apabila denda tidak dibayar diganti dengan pidana kurungan selama 1 (satu) bulan, pertimbangan tersebut telah sesuai dan memenuhi ketentuan Pasal 256 jo Pasal 193 ayat (1) KUHAP. Kata Kunci: Kasasi, Pertimbangan Hakim, Tindak Pidana Kehutanan. Based on the results of the study, it is known that the reason for the judex facti Public Prosecutor's Appeal of the Donggala District Court has misapplied the law, because it did not properly consider the legal facts revealed in the trial, namely that the Defendant bought 80 pieces of wood from Brother Herman. The wood is stored in the UD wood processing industry. Sabar Jaya Sentosa belongs to the Defendant without being accompanied by a Letter or Document of SKAU (Certificate of Origin). The defendant has violated the provisions contained in Article 87 Paragraph (1) letter a Jo. Article 12 letter k Act Number 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction. The reason for the Cassation of the Public Prosecutor has been in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 paragraph (1) letter a of the Criminal Procedure Code and the consideration based on the judex facti error is not careful in considering the facts mentioned above. The Supreme Court subsequently canceled the Donggala District Court Number 199 / Pid.Sus / 2016 / PN.Dgl dated January 5, 2017. The Supreme Court tried the case itself which essentially stated that Defendant Tasbidin Alias Pete was legally and convincingly proven guilty of a criminal act "Deliberately buying timber forest products that are thought to originate from illegal logging "and imposing criminal sanctions on the Defendant is therefore a 6 (six) month imprisonment and a fine of Rp. 1,000,000,000 (one billion rupiah) with the provision that if the fine is not paid is replaced by a confinement for 1 (one) month, the consideration is in accordance with the provisions of Article 256 jo Article 193 paragraph (1) KUHAP. Keywords: Cassation, Judge?s Consideration, Forestry Crime.
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa alasan Kasasi Penuntut Umum judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Donggala telah salah menerapkan hukum, karena tidak mempertimbangkan dengan benar fakta hukum yang terungkap di persindangan yakni Terdakwa membeli kayu dalam bentuk bantalan sebanyak 80 batang dari Saudara Herman. Kayu tersebut disimpan di tempat industri pengolahan kayu UD. Sabar Jaya Sentosa milik Terdakwa tanpa disertai dengan Surat atau Dokumen SKAU (Surat Keterangan Asal Usul). Terdakwa telah melanggar ketentuan yang temuat dalam Pasal 87 Ayat (1) huruf a Jo. Pasal 12 huruf k Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Pengerusakan Hutan. Alasan Kasasi Penuntut Umum telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 253 ayat (1) huruf a KUHAP serta pertimbangan didasarkan pada kekeliruan judex facti tidak cermat mempertimbangkan faktafakta sebagaimana disebutkan di atas. Mahkamah Agung kemudian membatalkan Pengadilan Negeri Donggala Nomor 199/Pid.Sus/2016/PN.Dgl tanggal 05 Januari 2017. Mahkamah Agung mengadili sendiri perkara tersebut yang pada pokoknya menyatakan Terdakwa Tasbidin Alias Pete terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana ?Dengan sengaja membeli hasil hutan kayu yang di duga berasal dari hasil pembalakan liar? dan menjatuhkan pidana kepada Terdakwa tersebut oleh karena itu dengan pidana penjara selama 6 (enam) bulan dan pidana denda sejumlah Rp. 1.000.000.000 (satu miliar rupiah) dengan ketentuan apabila denda tidak dibayar diganti dengan pidana kurungan selama 1 (satu) bulan, pertimbangan tersebut telah sesuai dan memenuhi ketentuan Pasal 256 jo Pasal 193 ayat (1) KUHAP. Kata Kunci: Kasasi, Pertimbangan Hakim, Tindak Pidana Kehutanan. Based on the results of the study, it is known that the reason for the judex facti Public Prosecutor's Appeal of the Donggala District Court has misapplied the law, because it did not properly consider the legal facts revealed in the trial, namely that the Defendant bought 80 pieces of wood from Brother Herman. The wood is stored in the UD wood processing industry. Sabar Jaya Sentosa belongs to the Defendant without being accompanied by a Letter or Document of SKAU (Certificate of Origin). The defendant has violated the provisions contained in Article 87 Paragraph (1) letter a Jo. Article 12 letter k Act Number 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction. The reason for the Cassation of the Public Prosecutor has been in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 paragraph (1) letter a of the Criminal Procedure Code and the consideration based on the judex facti error is not careful in considering the facts mentioned above. The Supreme Court subsequently canceled the Donggala District Court Number 199 / Pid.Sus / 2016 / PN.Dgl dated January 5, 2017. The Supreme Court tried the case itself which essentially stated that Defendant Tasbidin Alias Pete was legally and convincingly proven guilty of a criminal act "Deliberately buying timber forest products that are thought to originate from illegal logging "and imposing criminal sanctions on the Defendant is therefore a 6 (six) month imprisonment and a fine of Rp. 1,000,000,000 (one billion rupiah) with the provision that if the fine is not paid is replaced by a confinement for 1 (one) month, the consideration is in accordance with the provisions of Article 256 jo Article 193 paragraph (1) KUHAP. Keywords: Cassation, Judge?s Consideration, Forestry Crime.
Download
book
BibTex
Latex, Jabref
cloud_download
Original Resource
url resource Institution
