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 menganalisa ketidaksinkronan berkenaan dengan perlakuan terhadap justice collaborator pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 430k/Pid.Sus/2018. Jenis penelitian yang penulis gunakan dalam menyusun penelitian hukum ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Adapun kajian selanjutnya adalah untuk mengetahui pertimbangan hakim Mahkamah Agung yang memberikan vonis bagi terdakwa Irman dan Sugiharto diperberat masing-masing menjadi lima belas tahun penjara. Berdasar hal ini tidak sinkron dengan peraturan perundang-undangan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban, Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 04 Tahun 2011,   Pasal 37 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2006, dan Pasal 26 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2009. Tidaksinkron atau disharmoni   terjadi jika terdapat ketidakselarasan antara satu norma hukum dengan norma hukum yang lain. Disharmoni peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut tidak dapat dipisahkan dari problematika dasar konstitusi Indonesia. Berdasar hasil penelitian disharmoni dan ketidaksinkronan terdapat dua hal yaitu putusan hakim tersebut menunjukkan ketidaksinkronan terhadap ketentuan perundang-undangan terkait justice collaborator dalam hal ini, hakim lebih memilih, membuat dan menciptakan hukum baru daripada menggunakan ketentuan perundang-undangan yang sudah ada. Putusan hakim tersebut bukanlah suatu yang salah, karena hakim seperti dalam hal ini menghasilkan putusan yang bersifat kontektual. Hakim memiliki pendapat tersendiri berdasarkan keyakinannya sehingga hakim tidak selalu menjadi corong undang-undang akan tetapi memilih untuk membuat hukum (judge made law). Disharmoni kedua yaitu, belum adanya sinkronisasi untuk penetapan justice collaborator di Indonesia.Kata Kunci: Ketidaksinkronan, Justice Collaborator, Putusan Hakim ABSTRACK This study aimed to analyze the inconsistency regard to the treatment of justice collaborator in the Supreme Court Decision Number: 430k/Pid.Sus/2018. The research type of used in this legal research was normative legal research. The next study was to find out the consideration of the Supreme Court judge who gave the verdict of Defendant Irman and Sugiharto to be fifteen years in prison respectively. Based on these was inconsistent with the laws and regulations of Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 13 of 2006 about Witness and Victim Protection, Circular Letter of the Supreme Court Number 04 of 2011, Article 37 paragraph (2) of Law Number 7 In 2006, and Article 26 of Law Number 5 of 2009. The inconsistency or disharmony occurred if there is an inconsistency between one legal norm and another legal norm. The disharmony's of legislation cannot be separated from the basic problems of the Indonesian constitution. Based on the results of disharmony and inconsistent research, there were two things, namely the judge's decision showed there was not synchronized with the statutory provisions relating to the justice collaborator. In this case, the judge preferred, made, and created new laws rather than using existing legal provisions. Judge's decision was not wrong, because the judge in this case produced a contextual decision. The judge had his own opinion based on his beliefs so that the judge was not always a source of the law but chose to make a law (judge made law). The second disharmony is there was no synchronization to determine justice collaborator in Indonesia.Keywords: Inconsistency, Justice Collaborator, Judge's Decision

ANALISIS KETIDAKSINKRONAN PUTUSAN HAKIM DAN KETENTUAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN TERKAIT JUSTICE COLLABORATOR DALAM PERKARA E-KTP IRMAN DAN SUGIHARTO