<![CDATA[ABSTRAKPenelitian ini mendeskripsikan dan mengkaji permasalahan mengenai perbedaan pertimbangan Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta dan Hakim Mahkamah Agung dalam perkara Citizen Lawsuit pada Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Nomor:.588/PDT/2015/PT.DKI dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor:.31 K/Pdt/2017. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif yang bersifat deskriptif melalui pendekatan kasus. Jenis dan sumber bahan hukumnya yaitu bahan hukum primer dan sekunder dengan teknik pengumpulan studi pustaka. Pada hasil penelitian terdapat 3 perbedaan pertimbangan Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta dan Hakim Mahkamah Agung. Indonesia belum memiliki pengaturan mengenai Citizen Lawsuit, sehingga dalam memutus perkara Citizen Lawsuit hanya menggunakan literatur. Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta dalam mengkonstatir literatur tidak membaca Laporan Penelitian Class Action dan Citizen Lawsuit oleh Mahkamah Agung sehingga badan hukum swasta yang menjadi Turut Tergugat I dan Turut Tergugat II tidak diperbolehkan. Surat kuasa khusus juga dinilai tidak sesuai. Adanya tuntutan pencabutan Surat menyebabkan tidak terpenuhinya karakteristik Citizen Lawsuit yang mana sesuai dengan Laporan Penelitian Class Action dan Citizen Lawsuit. Hakim Mahkamah Agung telah konsisten dengan Laporan Penelitian Class Action dan Citizen Lawsuit yang memperbolehkan adanya Turut Tergugat. Surat kuasa khusus juga dinilai telah sesuai, serta adanya tuntutan pencabutan Surat yang tidak disebutkan dalam pertimbangan yang mana penting menyangkut tidak terpenuhinya karakteristik Citizen Lawsuit.Kata Kunci: komparasi, pertimbangan hakim dan Citizen Lawsuit ABSTRACTThis study described and examined the problems regarding differences in the consideration of Judges of the DKI Jakarta High Court and Judges of Supreme Court in the case of Citizen Lawsuit in the High Court Decision Number: 588/PDT/2015/PT.DKI and Supreme Court Decision Number: 31 K/Pdt/2017. This study is a descriptive normative legal research through a case approach. The types and sources of legal materials are primary and secondary legal materials with library study collection techniques. In the study results, there were 3 different considerations of Judges of the DKI Jakarta High Court and Judges of Supreme Court. Indonesia hasn’t got the rules regarding to Citizen Lawsuit, that is the reason why Indonesia only uses literature as a tool in making decisions. The Judges of DKI Jakarta High Court in the context of the literature did not read the Class Action Research Report and the Citizen Lawsuit by the Supreme Court so that the private legal entities that became the Defendant I and Defendant II were not allowed. Special power of attorney was also considered not in accordance with the rules. The demand for revocation of the Letter caused the characteristics of the Citizen Lawsuit was not fulfilled to be in accordance with the Class Action Research Report and the Citizen Lawsuit. Judges of the Supreme Court was consistent with the Class Action Research Report and the Citizen Lawsuit which allowed Defendants to be involved. Then the special power of attorney was deemed appropriate, and there were demands for revocation of the Letter which was not mentioned in the consideration which was important regarding the characteristics of Citizen Lawsuit that was not fulfilled.Keyword: comparison, consideration of judges and Citizen Lawsuit]]>
Copyrights © 2020
