KETIK YANG ANDA CARI

Custom Search

Monday, February 25, 2008

Habeas Corpus



"Habeas Corpus" (ad subjiciendum) means "You may have the body" (to produce it in court).

"Habeas Corpus" (ad subjiciendum)is an important instrument to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary criminal process by police or other executive powers. The concept of habeas corpus is a fundamental part of the British legal system. the first mention of habeas corpus was in 1305, to the reign of England’s King Edward I. Habeas corpus is a writ, or written court order, that requires a person held by the authorities to be brought before the courts so the legality of their detention can be examined.

In America, the main principles were adopted in the US Constitution. (Habeas Corpus Act 1679) Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2


Habeas Corpus Act

31 Car. 2, c. 2 , 27 May 1679

Whereas great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation:

II. For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters; (2) be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority thereof, That whensoever any person or persons shall bring any habeas corpus directed unto any sheriff or sheriffs, gaoler, minister or other person whatsoever, for any person in his or her custody, and the said writ shall be served upon the said officer, or left at the gaol or prison with any of the under-officers, under-keepers or deputy of the said officers or keepers, that the said officer or officers, his or their under-officers, under-keepers or deputies, shall within three days after the service thereof as aforesaid (unless the commitment aforesaid were for treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment) upon payment or tender of the charges of bringing the said prisoner, to be ascertained by the judge or court that awarded the same, and endorsed upon the said writ, not exceeding twelve pence per mile, and upon security given by his own bond to pay the charges of carrying back the prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the court or judge to which he shall be brought according to the true intent of this present act, and that he will not make any escape by the way, make return of such writ; (3) and bring or cause to be brought the body of the party so committed or restrained, unto or before the lord chancellor, or lord keeper of the great seal of England for the time being, or the judges or barons of the said court from whence the said writ shall issue, or unto and before such other person or persons before whom the said writ is made returnable, according to the command thereof; (4) and shall then likewise certify the true causes of his detainer or imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the distance of twenty miles from the place or places where such court or person is or shall be residing; and if beyond the distance of twenty miles, and not above one hundred miles, then within the space of ten days, and if beyond the distance of one hundred miles, then within the space of twenty days, after such delivery aforesaid, and not longer.

III. And to the intent that no sheriff, gaoler or other officer may pretend ignorance of the import of any such writ; (2) be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all such writs shall be marked in this manner, Per statutum tricesimo primo Caroli secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the person that awards the same; (3) and if any person or persons shall be or stand committed or detained as aforesaid, for any crime, unless for felony or treason plainly expressed in the warrant of commitment, in the vacation-time, and out of term, it shall and may be lawful to and for the person or persons so committed or detained (other than persons convict or in execution by legal process) or any one on his or their behalf, to appeal or complain to the lord chancellor or lord keeper, or any one of his Majesty's justices, either of the one bench or of the other, or the barons of the exchequer of the degree of the coif; (4) and the said lord chancellor, lord keeper, justices or barons or any of them, upon view of the copy or copies of the warrant or warrants of commitment and detainer, or otherwise upon oath made that such copy or copies were denied to be given by such person or persons in whose custody the prisoner or prisoners is or are detained, are hereby authorized and required, upon request made in writing by such person or persons, or any on his, her or their behalf, attested and subscribed by two witnesses who were present at the delivery of the same, to award and grant an habeas corpus under the seal of such court whereof he shall then be one of the judges, (5) to be directed to the officer or officers in whose custody the party so committed or detained shall be, returnable immediate before the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or such justice, baron or any other justice or baron of the degree of the coif of any of the said courts; (6) and upon service thereof as aforesaid, the officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or their deputy, in whose custody the party is so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively before limited, bring such prisoner or prisoners before the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or such justices, barons or one of them, before whom the said writ is made returnable, and in case of his absence before any other of them, with the return of such writ, and the true causes of the commitment and detainer; (7) and thereupon within two days after the party shall be brought before them, the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or such justice or baron before whom the prisoner shall be brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said prisoner from his imprisonment, taking his or their recognizance, with one or more surety or sureties, in any sum according to their discretions, having regard to the quality of the prisoner and nature of the offence, for his or their appearance in the court of King's bench the term following, or at the next assizes, sessions or general gaol-delivery of and for such county, city or place where the commitment was, or where the offence was committed, or in such other court where the said offence is properly cognizable, as the case shall require, and then shall certify the said writ with the return thereof, and the said recognizance or recognizances into the said court where such appearance is to be made; (8) unless it shall appear unto the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or justice or justices, or baron or barons, that the party so committed is detained upon a legal process, order or warrant, out of some court that hath jurisdiction of criminal matters, or by some warrant signed and sealed with the hand and seal of any of the said justices or barons, or some justice or justices of the peace, for such matters or offences for the which by the law the prisoner is not bailable.

IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any person shall have wilfully neglected by the space of two whole terms after his imprisonment, to pray a habeas corpus for his enlargement, such person so wilfully neglecting shall not have any habeas corpus to be granted in vacation-time, in pursuance of this act.

V. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the returns aforesaid, or to bring the body or bodies of the prisoner or prisoners according to the command of the said writ, within the respective times aforesaid, or upon demand made by the prisoner or person in his behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or within the space of six hours after demand shall not deliver, to the person so demanding, a true copy of the warrant or warrants of commitment and detainer of such prisoner, which he and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly, all and every the head gaolers and keepers of such prisons, and such other person in whose custody the prisoner shall be detained, shall for the first offence forfeit to the prisoner or party grieved the sum of one hundred pounds; (2) and for the second offence the sum of two hundred pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said office; (3) the said penalties to be recovered by the prisoner or party grieved, his executors or administrators, against such offender, his executors or administrators, by any action of debt, suit, bill, plaint or information, in any of the King's courts at Westminster, wherein no essoin, protection, privilege, injunction, wager of law, or stay of prosecution by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted or allowed, or any more than one imparlance; (4) and any recovery or judgment at the suit of any party grieved, shall be a sufficient conviction for the first offence; and any after recovery or judgment at the suit of a party grieved for any offence after the first judgment, shall be a sufficient conviction to bring the officers or person within the said penalty for the second offence.

VI. And for the prevention of unjust vexation by reiterated commitments for the same offence; (2) be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no person or persons which shall be delivered or set at large upon any habeas corpus, shall at any time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same offence by any person or persons whatsoever, other than by the legal order and process of such court wherein he or they shall be bound by recognizance to appear, or other court having jurisdiction of the cause; (3) and if any other person or persons shall knowingly contrary to this act recommit or imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or imprisoned, for the same offence or pretended offence, any person or persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they shall forfeit to the prisoner or party grieved the sum of five hundred pounds; any colourable pretence or variation in the warrant or warrants of commitment notwithstanding, to be recovered as aforesaid.

VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any person or persons shall be committed for high treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment, upon his prayer or petition in open court the first week of the term, or first day of the sessions of oyer and terminer or general gaol-delivery, to be brought to his trial, shall not be indicted some time in the next term, sessions of oyer and terminer or general gaol-delivery, after such commitment; it shall and may be lawful to and for the judges of the court of King's bench and justices of oyer and terminer or general gaol-delivery, and they are hereby required, upon motion to them made in open court the last day of the term, sessions or gaol-delivery, either by the prisoner or any one in his behalf, to set at liberty the prisoner upon bail, unless it appear to the judges and justices upon oath made, that the witnesses for the King could not be produced the same term, sessions or general gaol-delivery; (2) and if any person or persons committed as aforesaid, upon his prayer or petition in open court the first week of the term or first day of the sessions of oyer and terminer and general gaol-delivery, to be brought to his trial, shall not be indicted and tried the second term, sessions of oyer and terminer or general gaol-delivery, after his commitment, or upon his trial shall be acquitted, he shall be discharged from his imprisonment.

VIII. Provided always, That nothing in this act shall extend to discharge out of prison any person charged in debt, or other action, or with process in any civil cause, but that after he shall be discharged of his imprisonment for such his criminal offence, he shall be kept in custody according to the law, for such other suit.

IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any person or persons, subjects of this realm, shall be committed to any prison or in custody of any officer or officers whatsoever, for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, that the said person shall not be removed from the said prison and custody into the custody of any other officer or officers; (2) unless it be by habeas corpus or some other legal writ; or where the prisoner is delivered to the constable or other inferior officer to carry such prisoner to some common gaol; (3) or where any person is sent by order of any judge or assize or justice of the peace, to any common workhouse or house of correction; (4) or where the prisoner is removed from one prison or place to another within the same county, in order to his or her trial or discharge in due course of law; (5) or in case of sudden fire or infection, or other necessity; (6) and if any person or persons shall after such commitment aforesaid make out and sign, or countersign any warrant or warrants for such removal aforesaid, contrary to this act; as well he that makes or signs, or countersigns such warrant or warrants, as the officer or officers that obey or execute the same, shall suffer and incur the pains and forfeitures in this act before mentioned, both for the first and second offence respectively, to be recovered in manner aforesaid by the party grieved.

X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any prisoner and prisoners as aforesaid, to move and obtain his or their habeas corpus as well out of the high court of chancery or court of exchequer, as out of the courts of King's bench or common pleas, or either of them; (2) and if the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or any judge or judges, baron or barons for the time being, of the degree of the coif, of any of the courts aforesaid, in the vacation time, upon view of the copy or copies of the warrant or warrants of commitment or detainer, or upon oath made that such copy or copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any writ of habeas corpus by this act required to be granted, being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to the prisoner or party grieved the sum of five hundred pounds, to be recovered in manner aforesaid.

XI. And be it declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That an habeas corpus according to the true intent and meaning of this act, may be directed and run into any county palatine, the cinque-ports, or other privileged places within the kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the islands of Jersey or Guernsey; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

XII. And for preventing illegal imprisonments in prisons beyond the seas; (2) be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no subject of this realm that now is, or hereafter shall be an inhabitant or resiant of this kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, shall or may be sent prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Tangier, or into parts, garrisons, islands or places beyond the seas, which are or at any time hereafter shall be within or without the dominions of his Majesty, his heirs or successors; (3) and that every such imprisonment is hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal; (4) and that if any of the said subjects now is or hereafter shall be so imprisoned, every such person and persons so imprisoned, shall and may for every such imprisonment maintain by virtue of this act an action or actions of false imprisonment, in any of his Majesty's courts of record, against the person or persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained, imprisoned, sent prisoner or transported, contrary to the true meaning of this act, and against all or any person or persons that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any warrant or writing for such commitment, detainer, imprisonment or transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting, in the same, or any of them; (5) and the plaintiff in every such action shall have judgment to recover his treble costs, besides damages, which damages so to be given, shall not be less than five hundred pounds; (6) in which action no delay stay or stop of proceeding by rule, order or command, nor no injunction, protection or privilege whatsoever, nor any more than one imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such rule of the court wherein the action shall depend, made in open court, as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special cause to be expressed in the said rule; (7) and the person or persons who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any warant for such commitment, detainer or transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison or transport any person or persons contrary to this act, or be any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear any office of trust or profit within the said realm of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, or any of the islands, territories or dominions thereunto belonging; (8) and shall incur and sustain the pains, penalties and forfeitures limited, ordained and provided in and by the statute of provision and praemunire made in the sixteenth year of King Richard the Second; (9) and be incapable of any pardon from the King, his heirs or successors, of the said forfeitures, losses or disabilities, or any of them.

XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this act shall extend to give benefit to any person who shall by contract in writing agree with any merchant or owner of any plantation, or other person whatsoever, to be transported to any parts beyond the seas, and receive earnest upon such agreement, although that afterwards such person shall renounce such contract.

XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any person or persons lawfully convicted of any felony, shall in open court pray to be transported beyond the seas, and the court shall think fit to leave him or them in prison for that purpose, such person or persons may be transported into any parts beyond the seas, this act or any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed, construed or taken, to extend to the imprisonment of any person before the first day of June one thousand six hundred seventy and nine, or to any thing advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such imprisonment; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XVI. Provided also, That if any person or persons at any time resiant in this realm, shall have committed any capital offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the islands, or foreign plantations of the King, his heirs or successors, where he or she ought to be tried for such offence, such person or persons may be sent to such place, there to receive such trial, in such manner as the same might have been used before the making of this act; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no person or persons shall be sued, impleaded, molested, or troubled for any offence against this act, unless the party offending be sued or impleaded for the same within two years at the most after such time wherein the offence shall be committed, in case the party grieved shall not be then in prison; and if he shall be in prison, then within the space of two years after the decease of the person imprisoned, or his or her delivery out of prison, which shall first happen.

XVIII. And to the intent no person may avoid his trial at the assizes or general gaol-delivery, by procuring his removal before the assizes, at such time as he cannot be brought back to receive his trial there; (2) be it enacted, That after the assizes proclaimed for that county where the prisoner is detained, no person shall be removed from the common gaol upon any habeas corpus granted in pursuance of this act, but upon any such habeas corpus shall be brought before the judge of assize in open court, who is thereupon to do what to justice shall appertain.

XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the assizes are ended, any person or persons detained, may have his or her habeas corpus according to the direction and intention of this act.

XX. And be it also enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any information, suit or action shall be brought or exhibited against any person or persons for any offence committed or to be committed against the form of this law, it shall be lawful for such defendants to plead the general issue, that they are not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special matter in evidence to the jury that shall try the same, which matter being pleaded had been good and sufficient matter in law to have discharged the said defendant or defendants against the said information, suit or action, and the said matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all intents and purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently pleaded, set forth or alledged the same matter in bar or discharge of such information suit or action.

XXI. And because many times persons charged with petty treason or felony, or as accessaries thereunto, are committed upon suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable, or not, according as the circumstances making out that suspicion are more or less weighty, which are best known to the justices of peace that committed the persons, and have the examinations before them, or to other justices of the peace in the county; (2) be it therefore enacted, That where any person shall appear to be committed by any judge or justice of the peace and charged as accessary before the fact, to any petty treason or felony, or upon suspicion thereof, or with suspicion of petty treason or felony, which petty treason or felony shall be plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment, that such person shall not be removed or bailed by virtue of this act, or in any other manner than they might have been before the making of this act.










-------------
Artikel Lain

* Korupsi-uang-hasil-korupsi
* Raisya-dan-agenda-perlindungan-hak-anak
* Komisioner Pilihan (Wakil) Rakyat
* Terorisme dalam Peradilan Pidana
* Pergeseran Makna Terorisme
* Kerahasiaan Data PPATK
* Panwas (dan) Pemilu
* Sistem Hukum Indonesia
* Kegagalan SPP Anak
* proses hukum dalam pemilu
* KPK dan Korupsi




-------------





Daftar program iklan di blok anda, klik banner di bawah!





--------------------

Baca Selengkapnya..

Saturday, February 02, 2008

RUU KUHP dan Kebebasan Pers



oleh:
RH Siregar

Sumbr : http://www.suarapembaruan.com/News/2005/04/27/Editor/edit02.htm

MENTERI Hukum dan HAM, Dr Hamid Awaluddin, terkesan sangat yakin bahwa Rancangan Undang- Undang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (RUU KUHP) nasional yang dihasilkan Ditjen Peraturan Perundang-undangan Depkum dan HAM tahun 2004 sudah sempurna dan siap disampaikan ke DPR untuk dibahas lebih lanjut.

Menanggapi kritik yang dilancarkan, mantan anggota KPU ini menegaskan, orang boleh memiliki pandangan berbeda, tetapi naskah yang ada sekarang sudah selesai. Kalau masih ada masukan supaya disampaikan saat pembahasan di DPR, demikian ditandaskan.

Memang kalau diteliti, naskah yang dihasilkan tahun 2004 ini sangat berbeda dengan naskah yang dihasilkan tahun 1999. Seperti diketahui, tim yang menghasilkan RUU KUHP 1999 diketuai Prof Mardjono Reksodiputra, dan RUU KUHP 2004 oleh Prof Muladi.

Perbedaan yang sangat menonjol ialah bahwa penyusun naskah 2004 terkesan sangat berambisi melakukan kodifikasi dan unifikasi di bidang hukum pidana. Menurut penyusun RUU, kodifikasi dan unifikasi dimaksudkan untuk menciptakan dan menegakkan keadilan, kebenaran, ketertiban dan kepastian hukum.

Akan tetapi dalil yang mengatakan tujuan kodifikasi dan unifikasi hukum bertujuan menciptakan dan menegakkan keadilan, kebenaran, ketertiban dan kepastian hukum, perlu dipertanyakan. Sebab kalau memang demikian halnya, apakah negara-negara yang tidak mengenal kodifikasi di bidang hukum tidak berhasil menciptakan dan menegakkan keadilan, kebenaran, ketertiban dan kepastian hukum?

Ambil contoh negara-negara Anglo-Saxon yang tidak menerapkan kodifikasi seperti halnya sistim hukum Eropa Kontinental. Apakah negara-negara itu tidak berhasil menciptakan dan menegakkan keadilan, kebenaran, ketertiban dan kepastian hukum?

Ternyata tanpa kodifikasi pun, banyak negara berhasil menciptakan dan menegakkan keadilan, kebenaran, ketertiban dan kepastian hukum.

Kolaborasi

Dengan kenyataan itu kita hendak mengatakan bahwa penciptaan dan penegakan keadilan, kebenaran, ketertiban dan kepastian hukum tidak hanya monopoli negara-negara yang menerapkan kodifikasi berdasarkan sistim hukum Eropa Kontinental.

Dengan kata lain, negara-negara Anglo-Saxon yang didasarkan pada common law dan tidak mengenal kodifikasi juga mampu menciptakan dan menegakkan keadilan, kebenaran, ketertiban dan kepastian hukum.

Oleh karena itu dipertanyakan, apa dasar pertimbangan utama penyusun RUU KUHP ini begitu ambisius melakukan kodifikasi dan unifikasi di bidang hukum pidana. Lagi pula dalam kenyataannya, penyusunan perundang-undangan nasional beberapa dekade terakhir, tidak lagi sepenuhnya taat asas pada sistem kodifikasi. Sebab dalam pembuatan perundang-undangan sudah dicampuradukkan beberapa rezim hukum ke dalam sebuah UU.

Sebagai contoh UU Pers (UU No 40 Tahun 1999 tentang Pers). Prof Dr Ahmad M Ramli, Staf Ahli Menteri Negara Komunikasi dan Informasi Bidang Hukum mengatakan, dewasa ini telah terjadi kolaborasi rezim-rezim konvensional ke dalam satu rezim hukum baru.

Seperti UU Pers yang me- rupakan rezim hukum media (media law) me- ngolaborasi hukum perdata, hukum pidana, hukum administrasi negara, hukum acara, HAKI, cyber law dan lain-lain.

Tegasnya, banyak negara telah meninggalkan sistim kodifikasi. Sejarah kodifikasi itu sendiri memang sudah ada sejak sebelum Masehi. Di negara-negara yang menganut common law, juga ada upaya melakukan kodifikasi, seperti di Inggris dan Amerika Serikat.

Namun, upaya itu selalu mengalami kegagalan akibat perbedaan hakiki antara sistim hukum Eropa Kontinental dan Anglo-Saxon. Begitu sulitnya sehingga ada pendapat yang mengatakan, rasanya merupakan suatu utopia untuk menghasilkan suatu kodifikasi bersifat komprehensif yang mampu mengatur seluruh dunia.

Tidak Konsisten

Lagi pula mengingat kondisi objektif negara kita sebagai negara sedang berkembang, penerapan sistim kodifikasi dan unifikasi hukum pidana ini perlu dipertimbangkan secara matang. Tidak lain karena sebagai negara sedang berkembang di satu sisi dan perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi canggih yang sangat pesat di sisi lain, menyebabkan terjadi perubahan yang sangat cepat secara mendasar di hampir semua bidang kehidupan.

Belum lagi dampak atau pengaruh globalisasi menyebabkan independensi bangsa-bangsa satu sama lain sangat kuat. Batas-batas negara pun tidak lagi menjadi kendala.

Melakukan kodifikasi dalam keadaan negara menghadapi perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi yang sangat cepat serta globalisasi, bukan tidak mungkin yang terjadi bukan penciptaan keadilan dan kebenaran serta kepastian hukum, melainkan ketertinggalan hukum yang mengakibatkan ketidakpastian hukum.

Sebab sementara keadaan telah berubah, sedangkan ketentuan hukum yang ada sudah tidak sesuai lagi dengan kebutuhan masyarakat dan dinamika yang berkembang.

Kemungkinan terjadinya ketertinggalan hukum akibat perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi yang sangat pesat, juga diakui penyusun RUU KUHP berisi 727 pasal itu. Penjelasan Buku Kedua dari RUU ditegaskan, bahwa akibat lajunya pembangunan dan kemajuan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi canggih, diperkirakan jenis tindak pidana baru masih akan muncul.

Oleh karena itu, terhadap jenis tindak pidana baru yang akan muncul yang belum diatur dalam KUHP ini, pengaturannya dilakukan dalam undang-undang tersendiri. Jelas di sini penyusun RUU KUHP tidak konsisten dengan sikap atau ambisinya melakukan kodifikasi dan unifikasi di bidang hukum pidana.

Ultimum Remidium

Di samping itu, ambisi penyusun RUU KUHP melakukan kodifikasi di bidang hukum pidana dengan sendirinya menutup rapat-rapat pintu ke arah perjuangan masyarakat pers akhir-akhir ini menjadikan UU Pers sebagai lex specialis sesuai adagium yang mengatakan lex specialis derogate legi generali (ketentuan bersifat khusus meniadakan ketentuan bersifat umum).

Itu berarti apabila terjadi kekeliruan dan kesalahan dalam pemberitaan pers yang merupakan pelanggaran pidana maka secara otomatis yang dikenakan adalah pasal-pasal yang terdapat dalam KUHP.

Tapi hal menarik lainnya yang perlu diperhatikan dari RUU KUHP karya anak bangsa ini adalah masalah paradigma. Karena terkesan bahwa RUU KUHP ini masih belum meninggalkan paradigma represif dari KUH Pidana warisan pemerintahan kolonial Belanda yang berlaku sekarang.

Paradigma dimaksud ialah bahwa RUU ini masih tetap mengutamakan punishment dalam pemidanaan, bukan treatment seperti diterapkan di banyak negara demokrasi di dunia. Lebih mengutamakan tindakan represif dari preventif.

Dan sama sekali tidak mempertimbangkan asas hukum pidana yang mengatakan bahwa penerapan pasal pidana merupakan upaya terakhir apabila tidak ada lagi upaya hukum non-pidana yang dapat diterapkan dalam menyelesaikan perkara pidana.

Inilah yang disebut dengan asas ultimum remidium. Artinya, pemberlakuan pasal-pasal pidana bukan segala-galanya. Kalau masih ada upaya hukum non-pidana, maka pemberlakuan pasal-pasal pidana tidak perlu dilakukan.

Pemberlakuan asas ultimum remidium ini sangat tepat diterapkan dalam perkara pers sebagai upaya hukum non-pidana. Artinya, kekeliruan atau kesalahan dalam pemberitaan pers seyogianya diselesaikan lebih dulu melalui mekanisme yang diatur dalam UU Pers.

"Ranjau-ranjau"

Paradigma lain yang masih melekat dalam RUU KUHP ini adalah masih eksisnya pasal-pasal yang terkenal sebagai "ranjau-ranjau pers", yaitu pasal-pasal tergolong haatzaai artikelen peninggalan pemerintah kolonial Belanda.

Selain sifat deliknya sangat mematikan, juga rumusan pasalnya sangat umum sehingga dikenal "pasal-pasal karet". Rumusan pasal yang sangat elastis seperti itu mengundang multi-interpretasi di kalangan penguasa berakibat mengancam kebebasan pers.

Ternyata RUU karya anak bangsa ini bukannya menghilangkan "ranjau-ranjau pers", bahkan sebaliknya menambah "pasal-pasal karet" yang bisa mengancam kebebasan pers. Yang fatal lagi ialah ternyata penyusun RUU sama sekali tidak mempertimbangkan penjabaran pelaksanaan Amendemen Kedua UUD 1945, khususnya Pasal 28F UUD 1945 yang menjamin kemerdekaan pers.

Sudah seharusnyalah RUU ini menuntaskan penjabaran makna hakiki dari jaminan kemerdekaan pers berdasarkan Pasal 28F UUD 1945. Itu berarti jaminan kemerdekaan pers dalam Pasal 28F UUD 1945 hanya formalitas belaka karena tanpa aktualisasi.

Kita tiba pada kesimpulan bahwa RUU KUHP ini tidak lebih maju dari KUH Pidana peninggalan kolonial Belanda, terutama berkaitan dengan kemerdekaan pers. Kembali di sini terbukti bahwa distorsi atas kemerdekaan pers datang dari perundang-undangan, dan karenanya Pasal 28F UUD 1945 perlu direvisi dengan menegaskan tidak akan ada peraturan perundang-undangan yang dapat mengurangi kemerdekaan pers. *

Penulis adalah wartawan dan pengamat hukum pers








-------------
Artikel Lain

* Korupsi-uang-hasil-korupsi
* Raisya-dan-agenda-perlindungan-hak-anak
* Komisioner Pilihan (Wakil) Rakyat
* Terorisme dalam Peradilan Pidana
* Pergeseran Makna Terorisme
* Kerahasiaan Data PPATK
* Panwas (dan) Pemilu
* Sistem Hukum Indonesia
* Kegagalan SPP Anak
* proses hukum dalam pemilu
* KPK dan Korupsi




-------------



- hibah untuk yang lain
- dapat dana untuk sekolah/kuliah/usaha


Daftar program iklan di blok anda, klik banner di bawah!





--------------------

Baca Selengkapnya..

Dimensi Historis Asas Retroaktif



Oleh A Ahsin Thohari

Sumber : kompas, Sabtu, 19 Februari 2005

JIKA ada dua sarjana hukum, maka akan ada tiga pendapat. Itulah ungkapan yang kerap muncul untuk menggambarkan betapa hukum itu multiperspektif. Dengan demikian, setiap orang selalu punya seleranya sendiri untuk lebih menonjolkan satu aspek sambil mengabaikan aspek lain. Tak terkecuali dalam melihat keberadaan asas retroaktif.

Wacana keberadaan asas retroaktif yang selalu kontroversial kembali menghangat seiring pengajuan permohonan tersangka kasus korupsi Bram HD Manoppo kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) untuk menguji Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang menurutnya berlaku retroaktif.
Ini kedua kalinya MK mengadili kasus yang memperdebatkan asas retroaktif, setelah sebelumnya mengadili kasus terdakwa bom Bali Masykur Abdul Kadir yang mengajukan permohonan pengujian atas Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2003. Bedanya, kali ini MK menolak permohonan pengujian karena Pasal 68 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tidak mengandung asas retroaktif.

Asas retroaktif yang memberlakukan surut peraturan merupakan penyimpangan dari asas legalitas yang mengandaikan tiada perbuatan boleh dihukum kecuali ada peraturan terlebih dulu. Tulisan ini akan mengulas pasang surut sejarah kedua asas itu dalam perspektif perkembangan gagasan-gagasan ketatanegaraan di negara-negara yang dianggap sebagai asal kedua asas itu.

Dinamika asas legalitas

Asas legalitas yang dikenal dalam hukum pidana modern muncul dari lingkup sosiologis Abad Pencerahan yang mengagungkan doktrin perlindungan rakyat dari perlakuan sewenang-wenang kekuasaan. Sebelum datang Abad Pencerahan, kekuasaan dapat menghukum orang meski tanpa ada peraturan terlebih dulu. Saat itu, selera kekuasaanlah yang paling berhak menentukan apakah perbuatan dapat dihukum atau tidak. Untuk menangkalnya, hadirlah asas legalitas yang merupakan instrumen penting perlindungan kemerdekaan individu saat berhadapan dengan negara. Dengan demikian, apa yang disebut dengan perbuatan yang dapat dihukum menjadi otoritas peraturan, bukan kekuasaan.
Menurut para ahli hukum, akar gagasan asas legalitas berasal dari ketentuan Pasal 39 Magna Charta (1215) di Inggris yang menjamin adanya perlindungan rakyat dari penangkapan, penahanan, penyitaan, pembuangan, dan dikeluarkannya seseorang dari perlindungan hukum/undang-undang, kecuali ada putusan peradilan yang sah. Ketentuan ini diikuti Habeas Corpus Act (1679) di Inggris yang mengharuskan seseorang yang ditangkap diperiksa dalam waktu singkat. Gagasan ini mengilhami munculnya salah satu ketentuan dalam Declaration of Independence (1776) di Amerika Serikat yang menyebutkan, tiada seorang pun boleh dituntut atau ditangkap selain dengan, dan karena tindakan-tindakan yang diatur dalam, peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pandangan inilah yang akhirnya dibawa ke Perancis oleh seorang sahabat dekat George Washington, Marquis de Lafayette. Ketentuan mengenai "tiada orang yang dapat dipidana selain atas kekuatan undang-undang yang sudah ada sebelumnya" tercantum dalam Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen (1789). Gagasan itu akhirnya menyebar ke berbagai negara, termasuk Belanda dan akhirnya Indonesia yang mengaturnya dalam Pasal 1 KUHP.

Tujuan yang ingin dicapai asas legalitas adalah memperkuat kepastian hukum, menciptakan keadilan dan kejujuran bagi terdakwa, mengefektifkan fungsi penjeraan dalam sanksi pidana, mencegah penyalahgunaan kekuasaan, dan memperkokoh rule of law (Muladi, 2002). Asas ini memang sangat efektif dalam melindungi rakyat dari perlakuan sewenang-wenang kekuasaan, tapi dirasa kurang efektif bagi penegak hukum dalam merespons pesatnya perkembangan kejahatan. Dan, ini dianggap sebagian ahli sebagai kelemahan mendasar.

Oleh karena itu, E Utrecht (1966) mengatakan, asas legalitas kurang melindungi kepentingan-kepentingan kolektif (collectieve belangen), karena memungkinkan dibebaskannya pelaku perbuatan yang sejatinya merupakan kejahatan tapi tidak tercantum dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Jadi, paradigma yang dianut asas ini adalah konsep mala in prohibita (suatu perbuatan dianggap kejahatan karena adanya peraturan), bukan mala in se (suatu perbuatan dianggap kejahatan karena tercela).
Kontroversi asas retroaktif

Dengan kelemahan asas legalitas itu, beberapa ahli menganggap perlu dimungkinkannya penerapan asas retroaktif setidak-tidaknya untuk (1) menegakkan prinsip-prinsip keadilan; (2) mencegah terulangnya kembali perbuatan yang sama; (3) mencegah terjadinya impunitas pelaku kejahatan; dan (4) mencegah terjadinya kekosongan hukum. Dengan empat alasan tersebut, asas legalitas yang sering mengalami kebuntuan ketika berhadapan dengan realitas dapat disimpangi secara selektif. Menurut mantan jaksa penuntut dalam International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Marie Tuma (2001), asas retroaktif dapat diterapkan terhadap situasi kekacauan yang menghancurkan manusia.

Suatu peraturan perundang-undangan mengandung asas retroaktif jika (1) menyatakan seseorang bersalah karena melakukan suatu perbuatan yang ketika perbuatan tersebut dilakukan bukan merupakan perbuatan yang dapat dipidana; dan (2) menjatuhkan hukuman atau pidana yang lebih berat daripada hukuman atau pidana yang berlaku pada saat perbuatan itu dilakukan (Pasal 12 Ayat 2 Deklarasi Universal HAM). Asas tersebut bisa mengakibatkan seseorang dapat dipidana dengan alasan melakukan atau tidak melakukan suatu tindakan yang tidak diperhitungkan atau tidak diketahui akan membawanya pada pertanggungjawaban pidana. Pendukung asas ini mendasarkan diri pada asas ignorantia juris neminem excusat (ketidaktahuan hukum tidak membebaskan apa pun).

Hans Kelsen dalam General Theory of Law and State (1973) mengatakan, "Retroactive laws are considered to be objectionable and undesirable because it hurts our feeling of justice to inflict a sanction, especially a punishment, upon an individual because of an action or omission of which this individual could not know that it would entail this sanction." Kemungkinan adanya pelanggaran hukum yang tidak diperhitungkan dan tidak diketahui oleh pelakunya akan membawa pada pertanggungjawaban hukum inilah yang menjadi keberatan ahli lain terhadap keberadaan asas retroaktif.

Keberatan terhadap asas retroaktif semakin nyata setelah larangan penerapan hukum yang berlaku surut dicantumkan dalam konstitusi suatu negara sebagai hak yang tidak dapat dikurangi dalam keadaan apa pun. Tidak hanya itu, sebagaimana terbaca dalam putusan MK, asas retroaktif dengan segala bentuk dan alasan apa pun tidak dikehendaki karena dianggap dapat menimbulkan suatu bias hukum, mengabaikan kepastian hukum, menimbulkan kesewenang-wenangan, dan akhirnya akan menimbulkan political revenge (balas dendam politik). Inilah yang disebut bahwa asas retroaktif merupakan cerminan lex talionios (balas dendam).

Penulis berpendapat, asas retroaktif tidak boleh digunakan kecuali telah memenuhi empat syarat kumulatif: (1) kejahatan berupa pelanggaran HAM berat atau kejahatan yang tingkat kekejaman dan destruksinya setara dengannya; (2) peradilannya bersifat internasional, bukan peradilan nasional; (3) peradilannya bersifat ad hoc, bukan peradilan permanen; dan (4) keadaan hukum nasional negara bersangkutan tidak dapat dijalankan karena sarana, aparat, atau ketentuan hukumnya tidak sanggup menjangkau kejahatan pelanggaran HAM berat atau kejahatan yang tingkat kekejaman dan destruksinya setara dengannya.

Kontroversi penerapan asas retroaktif sulit diakhiri dalam waktu dekat dengan penjelasan akademis sebaik apa pun. Dugaan saya, ini bukan merupakan kasus permohonan pengujian undang-undang bermuatan asas retroaktif yang terakhir. Selalu saja ada ruang cukup untuk berdebat ketika asas retroaktif didiskusikan.

A Ahsin Thohari Pemerhati Hukum, Penulis Buku Komisi Yudisial dan Reformasi Peradilan










-------------
Artikel Lain

* Korupsi-uang-hasil-korupsi
* Raisya-dan-agenda-perlindungan-hak-anak
* Komisioner Pilihan (Wakil) Rakyat
* Terorisme dalam Peradilan Pidana
* Pergeseran Makna Terorisme
* Kerahasiaan Data PPATK
* Panwas (dan) Pemilu
* Sistem Hukum Indonesia
* Kegagalan SPP Anak
* proses hukum dalam pemilu
* KPK dan Korupsi




-------------



- hibah untuk yang lain
- dapat dana untuk sekolah/kuliah/usaha


Daftar program iklan di blok anda, klik banner di bawah!





--------------------

Baca Selengkapnya..