Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

FORMULATION OF RULES CONCERNING ABORTION AGAINST OF VICTIMS RAPE: BETWEEN POSITIVE LAW AND FUTURE LAW Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Nurani: Jurnal Kajian Syari'ah dan Masyarakat Vol 20 No 2 (2020): Nurani
Publisher : Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah Palembang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19109/nurani.v20i2.6484

Abstract: This paper aims to describe the rules regarding abortion of victims of rape in the positive law and law that may apply within the future. Based on the results of the discussion, it can be concluded that abortion of victims of rape in the positive law isn’t prohibited and the offenders are not sentenced as stated in Law no. 36 of 2009 and the Law of Child Protection. This also applies to a woman who has an abortion for her pregnancy as a result of rape. In the future law, abortion of victims of rape is also not prohibited, but can only be performed by a doctor. The Draft Criminal Code doesn’t stipulate that abortion can also be performed by rape victims themselves. Even so, the rules contained in the Draft Criminal Code still cannot be applied to rape victims who have had an abortion for their pregnancy because positive laws (especially Law No. 36 of 2009 and the Law of Child Protection) have not been revoked by the Draft Criminal Code. In this context, the principle of “lex specialist derogat lex generalist” applies, namely Law no. 36 of 2009 and the Law of Child Protection as laws that are specific override general laws. For the sake of legal certainty, the Draft Criminal Code should confirm prohibited and non-prohibited abortion. The future law needs to be synchronized or harmonized with the positive law. If it’s not prohibited, the granting of permission to abortion for victims of rape should be given strictly so, it’s not abused. Keywords: Formulation, Abortion, Victim of Rape, Positive Law, Future Law

Presidential Permit to Summon Suspect of Corruption of the Member of the House of Representatives Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Sriwijaya Law Review VOLUME 2, ISSUE 2, JULY 2018
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28946/slrev.Vol2.Iss2.128.pp203-214

Summoning the suspect is one step in the process of investigation in the criminal justice system which had been regulated in the Criminal Code Procedure and in other special laws. However, presenting the suspect of the member of the Parliament before the Court is the problematic one. This is because in reality, it does not need a President permit but legally it does. The problem is whether pre-senting the suspect before the court without a Presidential Permit is not against the law. The findings showed that the regulation dealing with the summoning of the parliament member suspected of cor-ruption is not necessarily required. It is because the crime suspected to the members of House of Rep-resentative is included in the special crime which is stipulated the 2002 Law Number 30 deals with Corruption Eradication Commission Article 46 paragraph (1) with the elucidation in junction to Arti-cle 245 paragraph (3) sub paragraph c.

PENANGANAN PERKARA KEKERASAN DALAM RUMAH TANGGA MELALUI KONSEP RESTORATIVE JUSTICE (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SOLVING THROUGH RESTORATIVE JUSTICE) Ramiyanto .
Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia Vol 12, No 2 (2015): Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia - Juni 2015
Publisher : Direktorat Jenderal Peraturan Perundang-undang, Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia

Restorative justice merupakan salah satu konsep dalam peradilan pidana yang digunakan untukmenanganai perkara pidana dengan mengintegrasikan pelaku dan korban atau masyarakatserta menjadikan pengadilan sebagai mediatornya. Kekerasan dalam rumah tanggamerupakan salah satu tindak pidana yang ada di Indonesia sebagaimana diatur oleh UU No.23 Tahun 2004. Salah satu cara yang dapat digunakan untuk menangani perkara kekerasandalam rumah tangga dengan konsep restorative justice adalah mediasi penal (penal mediation),yaitu penyelesaian perkara pidana di luar pengadilan. Adapun bentuk-bentuk kekerasan dalamrumah tangga yang dapat ditangani dengan cara tersebut adalah yang dikategorikan sebagaitindak pidana aduan (klacht delicten) dan termasuk sebagai tindak pidana ringan.

UPAYA PENANGGULANGAN TINDAK PIDANA PERKOSAAN DENGAN SARANA PENAL DALAM RANGKA MELINDUNGI PEREMPUAN Ramiyanto Ramiyanto; Waliadin Waliadin
Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia Vol 15, No 4 (2018): Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia - Desember 2018
Publisher : Direktorat Jenderal Peraturan Perundang-undang, Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia

Rape is one of the criminal acts regulated in the Criminal Code as stated in Article 285. When viewed from the formulation, the crime of rape stipulated in the provision is included in the type of formal crime. Article 285 of the Criminal Code has set limits on the meaning of rape and its elements but is not given an explanation of the meaning of each of these elements. Therefore, the granting of the meaning of each element of criminal acts of rape is seen in the doctrine and practice of criminal justice that has occurred so far. In its development, handling effort to criminal acts of rape by means of penal (criminal law) experienced a shift in the form of expanding the meaning of elements of “violence or threat of violence” as can be seen in the decision number: 410/Pid.B/2014/PNBgl. This element is not only classically interpreted, but also includes the persuasion accompanied by false promises. In the context of the protection of women, the decision should be appreciated and should be used as a reference by the judge in handling the same case even though it was not followed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The expansion of the meaning of “violence or threat” as an element of criminal acts of rape can also be used as input for reforming criminal law in Indonesia.

KEDUDUKAN PENETAPAN TERSANGKA DI DALAM OBJEK GUGATAN PRAPERADILAN (THE POSITION OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE SUSPECT IN THE PRETRIAL LAWSUIT OBJECTS) Ramiyanto .
Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia Vol 12, No 4 (2015): Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia - Desember 2015
Publisher : Direktorat Jenderal Peraturan Perundang-undang, Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia

Objek gugatan praperadilan di dalam hukum positif Indonesia diatur oleh Pasal 1 angka 10 joPasal 77 KUHAP. Ketentuan itu mengalami perluasan setelah MK di dalam putusannyaNomor: 21/PUU-XII/2014 membatalkan Pasal 77 huruf a KUHAP. Dengan adanya putusanMK tersebut, maka objek gugatan praperadilan meliputi: sah atau tidaknya penangkapan,penahanan, penghentian penyidikan, penghentian penuntutan, dan tindakan lainnya, sertapermintaan ganti kerugian dan/atau rehabilitasi. Di dalam KUHAP tidak disebutkanpenetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatan praperadilan. Dalam hal ini, kedudukan penetapantersangka bukan sebagai upaya paksa. Penetapan tersangka dapat dikategorikan sebagaitindakan administrasi penyidik yang dapat disamakan dengan penghentian penyidikan ataupenuntutan.

KEDUDUKAN PENETAPAN TERSANGKA DI DALAM OBJEK GUGATAN PRAPERADILAN (THE POSITION OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE SUSPECT IN THE PRETRIAL LAWSUIT OBJECTS) Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia Vol 12, No 4 (2015): Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia - Desember 2015
Publisher : Direktorat Jenderal Peraturan Perundang-undang, Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia

Objek gugatan praperadilan di dalam hukum positif Indonesia diatur oleh Pasal 1 angka 10 jo Pasal 77 KUHAP. Ketentuan itu mengalami perluasan setelah MK di dalam putusannyaNomor: 21/PUU-XII/2014 membatalkan Pasal 77 huruf a KUHAP. Dengan adanya putusanMK tersebut, maka objek gugatan praperadilan meliputi: sah atau tidaknya penangkapan,penahanan, penghentian penyidikan, penghentian penuntutan, dan tindakan lainnya, sertapermintaan ganti kerugian dan/atau rehabilitasi. Di dalam KUHAP tidak disebutkanpenetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatan praperadilan. Dalam hal ini, kedudukan penetapantersangka bukan sebagai upaya paksa. Penetapan tersangka dapat dikategorikan sebagaitindakan administrasi penyidik yang dapat disamakan dengan penghentian penyidikan ataupenuntutan.

LEGAL STANDING LEMBAGA SWADAYA MASYARAKAT ATAU ORGANISASI KEMASYARAKATAN DALAM PENGAJUAN PRAPERADILAN Ramiyanto Ramiyanto; Silfy Maidianti
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 14, No 3 (2021): LOCUS STANDI
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v14i3.462

ABSTRAKPraperadilan atas penghentian penyidikan atau penuntutan perkara pidana di Indonesia saat ini dapat diajukan Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (LSM) atau Organisasi Kemasyarakatan (ORMAS) yang bertindak sebagai pihak ketiga yang berkepentingan. Menurut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 98/PUU-X/2012, LSM/ORMAS yang mengajukan praperadilan harus memiliki kepentingan dan tujuan yang sama dengan masyarakat yang diwakili, yaitu memperjuangkan kepentingan umum. Pada tataran praktis, tidak semua pengajuan praperadilan oleh LSM/ORMAS diterima pengadilan sebagaimana terlihat dalam Putusan Nomor 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt dan Nomor 111/Pid.Prap/2017/PN.Jkt.Sel. Rumusan penelitian ini, yaitu bagaimana pertimbangan hakim dalam kedua putusan tersebut? Apakah penafsiran hakim sudah tepat terkait dengan penentuan legal standing LSM/ORMAS? Penelitian ini termasuk ke dalam jenis penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder yang bersumber dari bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa legal standing LSM/ORMAS dalam pengajuan praperadilan ditentukan oleh tiga hal (syarat), yaitu: harus berbadan hukum, mempunyai kepentingan, dan memiliki kegiatan atau usaha nyata. Di antara ketiga hal (syarat) ini, yang menjadi perdebatan adalah mengenai kriteria kepentingan. LSM/ORMAS menurut hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 111/Pid/Prap/2017/PN.Jkt/Sel harus memiliki kepentingan dan tujuan tertentu serta ada kesamaan dengan perkara yang diajukan praperadilan. Kriteria tersebut tidak digunakan hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt. Perbedaan ini disebabkan oleh penggunaan metode penyempitan hukum ketika menafsirkan legal standing LSM/ORMAS dalam pengajuan praperadilan.Kata kunci: legal standing; lembaga swadaya masyarakat; organisasi masyarakat; praperadilan.ABSTRACTPretrial for termination of investigation or prosecution of criminal cases in Indonesia at this time can be submitted by Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) or public organizations acting as interested third parties. According to the Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 98/PUU-X/2012, NGOs or public organizations that apply for pretrials must have the same interests and goals as the people represented, which is to fight for the public interest. On a practical level, not all pretrial submissions by NGOs or public organizations are accepted by the court as seen in the Court Decision Number 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt and Number 111/Pid.Prap /2017/PN.Jkt.Sel. This research’s formulation of problem includes: what are the judge’s considerations in the two decisions? Is the judge’s interpretation on the determination of the NGOs or public organizations legal standing applicable? This research is classified as normative legal research using secondary data sourced from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study indicate that the legal standing of NGOs or public organizations in pretrial submissions is determined by three preconditions, which include having to be a legal entity, having an interest, and having real activities or businesses. Among the three, what is at issue is the criteria of interest. The NGOs or public organizations according to Court Decision Number 111/Pid/Prap/2017/PN.Jkt/Sel must have certain interests/goals and similarities to the cases submitted in the pretrial. However the judges did not put this criteria into practice in Court Decision Number 1/Pid.Prap/2019/PN.Skt. This difference arises because of the legal narrowing method used when interpreting the legal standing of NGOs or public organizations in pretrial submissions. Keywords: legal standing; non-governmental organization; public organization; pre-trial.

SAH ATAU TIDAKNYA PENETAPAN TERSANGKA SEBAGAI OBJEK GUGATAN PRAPERADILAN Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 8, No 2 (2015): FLEKSIBILITAS DAN RIGIDITAS BERHUKUM
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v8i2.51

ABSTRAKPasal 1 angka 10 jo. Pasal 77 ayat (2) KUHAP tidak mengatur secara jelas dan tegas mengenai sah atau tidaknya penetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatanpraperadilan. Namun dalam Putusan Nomor 04/Pid.Prap/2015/PN.Jkt.Sel, hakim praperadilan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan telah menerima dan mengabulkan penetapan tersangka BG yang dilakukan oleh penyidikKPK tidak sah. Dari hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan, bahwa dasar hukum yang digunakan sebagai pertimbangan hakim adalah Pasal 77 jo. Pasal 82 ayat(1) jo. Pasal 95 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) KUHAP. Menurut hakim, penetapan tersangka terhadap BG oleh penyidik KPK merupakan bentuk dari “tindakan lain” aparat penegak hukum yang sewenang-wenang sebagaimana dimaksud Pasal 95 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) KUHAP. Kedua pasal tersebut sebenarnya lebih kuat digunakan sebagai salah satu alasan untuk menuntut ganti rugi karena seorang tersangka perkaranya dihentikan baik di tingkat penyidikan maupun penuntutan. Oleh karena itu, tidak tepat apabila kata “tindakan lain” yang dimaksuddijadikan dasar sah atau tidaknya penetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatan praperadilan. Pertimbangan hakim dalam memutuskan sah atau tidaknya penetapan tersangka sebagai objek gugatan praperadilan seharusnya adalah atas dasar keadilan dengan keluar dari ketentuan KUHAP.Kata kunci: status tersangka, praperadilan, objek gugatan. ABSTRACTArticle 1 point (10) in conjunction with Article 77 paragraph (2) of Criminal Procedure Code does not clearly and explicitly regulates on the legitimacy of suspect status determination as an object of pretrial petition. However, the suspect status of BG submitted by the Corruption Eradication Commission was received and approved as illegitimate by the pretrial panel of judges though the Court Decision Number 04/Pid.Prap/2015/PN.Jkt.Sel. To analyze, it is resolved that the legal basis of the judgment consideration is Article 77 in conjunction with Article 82 paragraph (1) in conjunctionwith Article 95 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Determining BG as a graft suspect in the investigation of corruption cases conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission was regarded by the judges as a form of “measure” referring to the phrase in Article 95 paragraph (1) and (2) of CriminalProcedure Code, that is “‘other measures’ conducted by the arbitrary law enforcement officials.” These two articles are actually more appropriate when used by the suspect to seek redress, in the event that the case was stopped either at the level of investigation or prosecution. For that reason, it is not suitable if the term “othermeasure” issued as the legal basis of the determination of the suspect as the object of pretrial petition. The consideration of the pretrial panel of judges in decidingthe legitimacy of suspect status as the object of pretrial petition shall be made on the basis of justice at the first place by putting aside the provisions of the CriminalProcedure Code.Keywords: status of suspect, pretrial, object of petition.

PENJATUHAN PIDANA PENJARA BERSYARAT DALAM TINDAK PIDANA PERBANKAN Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 9, No 3 (2016): [DE]KONSTRUKSI HUKUM
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v9i3.14

ABSTRAKDi Indonesia, tindak pidana perbankan diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 1992 tentang Perbankan. Di dalam undang-undang tersebut diatur secara tegas mengenai ancaman sanksi berupa pidana bagi pelanggarnya. Pasal 49 ayat (2) huruf b Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 telah mengatur ancaman pidana untuk tindak pidana perbankan dengan sistem minimum khusus, yaitu paling singkat tiga tahun penjara dan denda paling sedikit Rp.5.000.000.000,- (lima miliar rupiah). Majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 menjatuhkan pidana penjara bersyarat. Putusan tersebut membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Tanjung Karang (judex facti) Nomor 437/Pid.Sus/2013 yang menjatuhkan putusan bebas (vrijspraak). Majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 telah menjatuhkan pidana penjara di bawah ancaman minimum, yaitu selama enam bulan penjara dengan sistem bersyarat. Menurut Pasal 14 ayat (1) KUHP, pidana bersyarat hanya dapat dilakukan apabila majelis hakim menjatuhkan pidana penjara paling lama satu tahun. Analisis putusan ini berfokus pada pokok pertimbangan majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 terkait penjatuhan pidana penjara bersyarat, dilihat dari ketentuan lamanya ancaman pidana. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dan berkesimpulan bahwa penjatuhan pidana penjara bersyarat dalam kasus tersebut dapat dibenarkan dengan alasan demi keadilan serta fakta keseimbangan antara tingkat kesalahan pelaku dan keadaan yang melingkupinya.Kata kunci: penjatuhan pidana, pidana penjara bersyarat, tindak pidana perbankan.ABSTRACTBanking Crime in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 10 of 1998 on the amendment to Law Number 7 of 1992 on Banking. The law expressly set the criminal sanctions for any violation. Article 49 paragraph (2) point b of Law Number 10 of 1998, has been stipulated criminal sanctions for banking crime at a special minimum system, which is imprisonment a minimum for three years and fine for at least five billion rupiahs. In Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 concerning banking crime, the panel of judges imposes unconditional imprisonment. Judex facti of the District Court of Tanjung Karang in the decision has overturned the Decision Number 437/Pid.Sus/2013 which is a judgment of acquittal (vrijspraak). The panel of judges in Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 has dropped the sentence to six-month in prison term, which is placed under the minimum penalty of acriminal sentence. According to Article 14 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing can only be compelling if a panel of judges dropped a maximum imprisonment of one year. The analysis focuses on the consideration of the panel of judges in making the Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 and sentencing conditional imprisonment in accordance to the criminal sanction and sentencing provisions. This analysis employs normative legal research methods and resolves that sentencing conditional imprisonment in this case is allowed for the sake of justice, as well as the facts, the balance between error level of the accused and the circumstances surrounding.Keywords: sentencing, conditional imprisonment sentence, banking crime.

MAKNA “AHLI WARIS” SEBAGAI SUBJEK PENGAJUAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI Ramiyanto Ramiyanto
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 9, No 1 (2016): DIVERGENSI TAFSIR
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v9i1.31

ABSTRAKPeninjauan Kembali (PK) merupakan salah satu dari upaya hukum luar biasa dalam hukum pidana Indonesia. Ahli waris merupakan salah satu pihak yang berhak mengajukan PK dalam perkara pidana sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP, yang rumusannya: “Terhadap putusan pengadilan yang memperoleh kekuatan hukum tetap, kecuali putusan bebas atau lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum, terpidana atau ahli warisnya dapat mengajukan permintaan peninjauan kembali kepada Mahkamah Agung.” Merujuk pada ketentuan itu, maka PK merupakan upaya hukum yang disediakan untuk melawan putusan pengadilan yang mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap (inkracht van gewijsde) yang berisi pemidanaan. Ketentuan itu mempunyai keterbatasan karena tidak diberikan batasan pengertian mengenai makna “ahli waris” yang menimbulkan permasalahan di dalam penerapannya terkait dengan penafsiran maknanya. Permasalahan itu timbul ketika majelis hakim Mahkamah Agung di dalam PutusanNomor 97 PK/Pid/Sus/2012 menerima PK yang diajukan isteri terpidana (ST) dengan dikategorikan sebagai ahli waris. Permasalahannya adalah “Apakah isteri seorang terpidana yang masih hidup dapat dikategorikan sebagai ahli waris?” Tulisan ini akan menganalisis penafsiran hukum hakim agung untuk menerima PK yang diajukan oleh istri ST dikaitkan dengan ajaran dan doktrin yang masih berlaku saat ini.Kata kunci: tafsir, ahli waris, peninjauan kembali. ABSTRACTCase review appeal is one of extraordinary legal remedies in the court proceeding of Procedural Criminal Code in Indonesia. Heir is a person or party entitled to file a petition for judicial review in criminal cases, as stipulated in Article 263, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, “of decision that has permanent legal force, except for judgment of acquittal or absolute discharge, felon or his heirs may file a petition for judicial review to Supreme Court. Referring to the provisions, a judicial review, is a legal action, which is provided against the court ruling, which has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde), related to criminal prosecution. The provision is imprecise since it does not set the meaning scope of the term “heir”; and in the implementation it results in problems related to its interpretation. Problems arise as the panel of judges of the Supreme Court in the Decision Number 97 PK/Pid/Sus/2012 accepted a petition for case review appeal filed by the wife of felon, ST, and regarded her as his beneficiary. The issue is whether the wife of a felon who are still alive can be considered as his heir? This analysis is discussing the legal interpretation of Supreme Court judges employed in accepting the petition for casereview filed by the wife of ST in regard to the prevailing jurisdictions and doctrines. Keywords: legal interpretation, heir, case review appeal.

Title

Found 11 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 11 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 11 Documents
Search