KAJIAN YURIDIS PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM PADA PUTUSAN PERKARA NOMOR: 194/PID.B/2022 TENTANG PENGRUSAKAN TANAMAN YANG BERASPEK KEPEMILIKAN TANAH

ALFIS, BULJUNSYAH and Antory, Royan and Emilia, Kontesa (2023) KAJIAN YURIDIS PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM PADA PUTUSAN PERKARA NOMOR: 194/PID.B/2022 TENTANG PENGRUSAKAN TANAMAN YANG BERASPEK KEPEMILIKAN TANAH. Masters thesis, Universitas Bengkulu.

Text (Thesis) TESIS ALFIS OK - Alfis Buljunsyah.pdf - Bibliography Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons GNU GPL (Software). Download (1MB)

Abstract

This research is motivated by the existence of cases of issuing 2 (two) or more land certificates on the same plot of land, which are often referred to as overlapping certificates and resulting in legal uncertainty for the holders of the land rights. The purpose of this research to find out and analyze the Juridical Study of Judge Considerations in Decision on Case Number: 194/Pid.B/2022 Concerning Destruction of Plants with Land Ownership Aspects. Destruction of Plants with Land Ownership Aspects and Judge's Decision in Criminal Case Number: 194/Pid.B/2022 Concerning Plant Destruction with Land Ownership Aspects in Accordance with the Principles of Justice. This research method uses normative legal research methods focusing on an inventory of positive law, by analyzing legal materials qualitatively juridically. The results of the study show that, First, the basis for the judge's consideration in deciding on the Criminal Case Number: 194/Pid.B/2022 is to continue to convict the defendants referring to the facts at trial, both evidence and evidence in accordance with the article that was violated, namely Article 406 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph and (1) of the Criminal Code as material for consideration and guidance in suspending criminal cases but continuing the criminal case and arriving at a decision by convicting the defendants. Second, the judge's decision in the criminal case Number: 194/Pid.B/2022 Concerning the Destruction of Plants with the Aspect of Land Ownership, in fact the panel of judges did not prioritize the principles of justice in deciding criminal cases. The judge should have made an interlocutory decision to postpone the criminal case process until awaiting a civil case because it can be assessed that the ownership of the object of the land dispute is unclear.

Actions (login required)

View Item