English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui eksistensi Dissenting Opinion Hakim dalam memeriksa perkara pemalsuan surat berdasarkan Ketentuan Pasal 182 Ayat (6) KUHAP. Penelitian hukum yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif yang bersifat terapan dengan pendekatan kasus. Sumber bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Teknik pengumpulan bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah studi kepustakaan. Teknik bahan hukum yang digunakan bersifat deduksi dengan metode silogisme. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa Hakim sebelum menjatuhkan putusan terlebih dahulu bermusyawarah untuk menentukan apa yang akan diputusnya nanti, apabila dalam musyawarah terjadi perbedaan pendapat (Dissenting Opinion) antara majelis hakim sehingga musyawarah tidak dicapai mufakat maka Hakim menggunakan ketentuan Pasal 182 Ayat (6) KUHAP agar diperoleh putusan yang bulat. Doktrin mengenai perbedaan pendapat (Dissenting Opinion) sendiri lahir dan berkembang dalam negara-negara yang menggunakan sistem hukum Common Law, seperti di Amerika Serikat dan Inggris. Doktrin ini kemudian berkembang dan diadopsi oleh negara-negara yang menganut sistem hukum Civil Law seperti Indonesia, Belanda, Perancis dan Jerman. Adanya Dissenting Opinion membuat masyarakat dapat mengetahui latar belakang lahirnya putusan. Masyarakat juga dapat menilai kualitas hakim dari perbedaan pendapat tersebut, terutama untuk mengetahui hakim mana yang lebih mendengar rasa keadilan yang berkembang dalam masyarakat. Kata Kunci: Kasasi, Pertimbangan Hakim, Dissenting Opinion ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to know the existence of Judge Dissenting Opinion in examining the matter forgery a letter based on the provisions of article 182 paragraph (6) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. This legal research is a normative legal research that is applied with case study approach. The sources of legal materials are primary and secondary legal materials. Techniques of collecting legal materials by the author is a document study or litterature study. Technique of analysis of law materials in this legal research is deduction with syllogistic method. Based on the result of the research, it is known that the Judge before declaring the decision in advance to decide what will be decided later if in the deliberation of Dissenting Opinion between the panel of judges so that the deliberation is not reached consensus then the Judge uses the provision of Article 182 Paragraph (6) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. The Dissenting Opinion doctrine itself was born and developed in countries that use the Common Law legal system, as in the United States and Britain. This doctrine then developed and adopted by countries that embrace the Civil Law system such as Indonesia, the Netherlands, France and Germany. Dissenting Opinion allows the public to know the background of the decision. The public can also judge the judges' quality of the dissent, especially to find out which judges hear more about the sense of justice developed in society Key Words : Cassation, Judge Consideration, Dissenting Opinion

verstek

TELAAH EKSISTENSI DISSENTING OPINION HAKIM MAHKAMAH AGUNG DALAM MEMERIKSA DAN MEMUTUS PERMOHONAN KASASI TERDAKWA (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 188 K/PID/2017)