<![CDATA[Abstrak Advokat merupakan orang yang berprofesi memberi jasa hukum pada kliennya dan dilindungi oleh hak imunitas ketika menjalankan tugas profesinya. Hak imunitas tidak berlaku bagi Advokat yang menjalankan tugas profesinya tanpa itikad baik. Pada kenyataannya hal tersebut masih belum dipahami oleh para Advokat. Undang-Undang Advokat seringkali menimbulkan salah penafsiran bagi pengemban profesi Advokat karena batas pengaturan antara hak imunitas yang dimiliki Advokat dengan pertanggung jawaban pidana yang dalam Undang-Undang Advokat tidak jelas, sehingga pada akhirnya membuat Advokat seringkali bertindak melampaui batasannya dalam membela kepentingan klien. Hal tersebut terbukti pada Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya No: 189/Pid.B/2016/PN.Sby, dimana dua orang Advokat tersandung kasus pidana akibat melampaui batas dalam membela kepentingan klien. Penulis ingin menganalisa batas pengaturan antara imunitas profesi dengan tanggung jawab pidana dalam menjalankan profesi Advokat berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 18 Tahun 2003 Tentang Advokat, serta menganalisis pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya No: 189/Pid.B/2016/PN.Sby. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui batas pengaturan antara imunitas profesi dengan tanggung jawab pidana dalam menjalankan profesi Advokat berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 18 Tahun 2003 Tentang Advokat, serta untuk mengetahui tepat atau tidaknya Majelis Hakim memutus perkara pidana terhadap advokat dalam menjalankan profesinya pada Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya No: 189/Pid.B/2016/PN.Sby. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian Yuridis Normatif. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus dan pendekatan konseptual yang diolah secara sistematis. Jenis bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah data sekunder yang terdiri dari bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan bahan non-hukum. Penulis mengumpulkan bahan hukum dan mengolahnya dengan membuat suatu keputusan hukum terhadap kasus yang konkret. Bahan hukum yang diperoleh kemudian diolah dan dianalisis menggunakan metode preskriptif. Batasan konkret dalam Undang-Undang Advokat dapat ditegaskan dengan metode penemuan hukum Argumentum a Contrario, menggunakan kalimat negasi (ingkaran) yang bertujuan memberi penegasan ruang lingkup suatu pernyataan. Maka kalimat negasi tersebut dapat diterapkan pada Pasal 16 Undang-Undang No. 18 Tahun 2003 Tentang Advokat. Terdapat dua opsi kalimat negasi yang dapat digunakan untuk mempertegas batas antara imunitas profesi dengan pertanggungjawaban pidana, yaitu : “untuk kepentingan klien, sepanjang tidak melanggar hukum pidana” atau “dilakukan dengan itikad baik, sepanjang tidak terbukti sebaliknya”. Pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya No: 189/Pid.B/2016/PN.Sby kurang lengkap dan sempurna. Beberapa pertimbangan yang dapat penulis tambahkan diantaranya, Pasal 318 KUHP Ayat (1) perlu dipertimbangkan sebagai pasal pemidanaan, Undang-Undang No.18 tahun 2003 tentang Advokat sebagai lex specialis perlu dipertimbangkan sebagai pasal pemidanaan, dan itikad baik terhadap klien perlu diperhatikan. Kata Kunci: hak imunitas, profesi advokat, pertanggung jawaban pidana, surat pengaduan, batasan.AbstractAdvocate is a person who professionally provides legal services to his clients and is protected by the right of immunity while performing his professional duties. The right of immunity shall not apply to Advocates who exercise their professional duties without goodwill. In fact it is still not understood by the Advocates. The unclear boundaries between the rights of the Advocates immunity and the criminal liability in the Advocate Law give rise to misinterpretation for the Advocates profession. So in the end it makes the Advocate often act beyond its limits in defending the clients interests. This is evident in the Surabaya District Court Decision No: 189 / Pid.B / 2016 / PN.Sby, where two Advocates stumble criminal cases due to exceed the limit in defending the interests of the client. The author wants to analyze the regulatory limit between professional immunity and criminal responsibility in running the Advocate profession based on Law no. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, and analyzed the considerations of the Panel of Judges in the Surabaya District Court Decision No: 189 / Pid.B / 2016 / PN.Sby. The purpose of this study is to determine the regulatory limit between professional immunity and criminal responsibility in running the Advocate profession based on Law no. 18 Year 2003 About Advocates, as well as to know whether or not the Panel of Judges decide criminal cases against advocates in carrying out their profession on the Surabaya District Court Decision No: 189 / Pid.B / 2016 / PN.Sby. This research uses Normative Juridical research method. This research is done by statute approach, case approach and conceptual approach which is processed systematically. The type of legal material used is secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and non-legal materials. The author collects legal material and processes it by making a legal decision on a concrete case. The legal material obtained is then processed and analyzed using prescriptive method. The concrete limitations in the Advocate Law can be confirmed by the method of legal discovery of Argumentum a Contrario, using a negation sentence (apostatize) which aims to provide confirmation of the scope of a statement. Then the sentence of the negation can be applied to Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003 On the Advocate which reads with two options of negation sentences which may be used to reinforce the boundary between professional immunity and criminal liability, namely: "for the benefit of the client, as long as it does not violate the criminal law" or "is done in good faith, as long as it is not proven otherwise". And then writer argues that the consideration of the Panel of Judges in the Surabaya District Court Decision No: 189 / Pid.B / 2016 / PN.Sby less complete and perfect. Some of the considerations that writers can add include, article 318 paragraph (1) of the penal code needs to be considered as a criminal procedure, law No.18 of 2003 on Advocates as lex specialis needs to be considered as a punishment section, both to the client need to be noticed be used to reinforce the boundary between professional immunity and criminal liability, namely: "for the benefit of the client, as long as it does not violate the criminal law" or "is done in good faith, as long as it is not proven otherwise". And then client, as long as it does not violate the criminal law" or "is done in good faith, as long as it is not proven otherwise". And then writer argues that the consideration of the Panel of Judges in the Surabaya District Court Decision No: 189 / Pid.B / 2016 / PN.Sby less complete and perfect. Some of the considerations that writers can add include, article 318 paragraph (1) of the penal code needs to be considered as a criminal procedure, law No.18 of 2003 on Advocates as lex specialis needs to be considered as a punishment section, both to the client need to be noticed.Keywords: immunity rights, advocate profession, criminal accountability, complaint statement, limitation.]]>
Copyrights © 2017
