ANALISIS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI JAMBI NOMOR 516/PID.B/2019/PN.JMB DITINJAU DARI PRINSIP ULTRA PETITA
Main Article Content
Abstract
The judge in deciding a criminal case must be based on the indictment of the public prosecutor
and everything that is proven at trial. The problem faced in the research is how the ultra petita
limit in imposing criminal sanctions by judges and how the Jambi District Court Decision No.
516/Pid.B/2019/PN.Jmb analyzes the ultra petita theory. The research method used is normative
juridical law research. The results of the study indicate that the ultra petita limit in imposing
criminal sanctions by judges is that it must not exceed the maximum threat of the article charged,
it is not allowed to give a criminal decision whose type of crime has no reference in the Criminal
Code, or criminal regulations outside the Criminal Code and the sentencing decision must give
consideration suf iciently evidence-based. Jambi District Court Judge Number
516/Pid.B/2019/PN.Jmb has given an ultra petita decision, in which case the Public Prosecutor in
his indictment demands a sentence of 10 years in prison for the defendant with a reduction while
the defendant is in prison. in detention based on his order that the accused remain in detention.
However, the Panel of Judges tried and sentenced the defendant for 12 years. In this case, the
judge has decided on the case and sentenced him to imprisonment in accordance with the
maximum penalty in the Criminal Code. There must be a normative regulation regarding the
existence of ultra petita decisions that may be made by judges.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Jurnal Komunikasi Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
A. Buku
Ali, Achmad. Menguak Tabir Hukum. Edisi Kedua. (Jakarta:
Prenadamedia Group, 2015).
Atmasasmita, Romli. Kapita Selekta Hukum Pidana dan Kriminologi.
(Bandung: Mandar Maju, 1995).
Budiarto, Miriam. Aneka Pemikiran tentang kuasa dan Wibawa. (Jakarta:
Sinar Harapan, 1991).
Erlangga, Arga. Pertimbangan Hakim Dalam Memutus Perkara di luar
Surat Dakwaan. (Jember: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Jember,
.
Harahap, M. Yahya. Kedudukan Kewenangan dan Acara Peradilan
Agama. (Bandung: Sinar Grafika, 1996).
Harahap, M. Yahya. Pembahasan Permasalahan KUHAP: Pemeriksaan
Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi, dan Peninjauan Kembali.
Edisi Kedua. (Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2002).
Mulyadi, Lilik. Seraut Wajah Putusan Hakim dalam Hukum Acara
Pidana Indonesia: Perspektif, Teoritis, Praktik, Teknik
Membuat, dan Permasalahannya. (Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti,
.
Ranuhandoko, I.P.M. Terminologi Hukum. (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2000).
Samidjo. Pengantar Hukum Indonesia. (Bandung: CV.Armico, 1985).
Soekanto, Soerjono. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Cet.3. (Jakarta:
Penerbit Universitas Indonesia-UI Press, 2010).
Sudharmawatiningsih. Pengkajian tentang Putusan Pemidanaan Lebih
Tinggi dari Tuntutan Jaksa Penuntut Umum: Laporan
Penelitian. (Jakarta: Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan Badan
Litbang Diklat Kumdil Mahkamah Agung, 2015).
Syamsu, Muhammad Ainul. Penjatuhan Pidana dan Dua Prinsip Dasar
Hukum Pidana. (Jakarta: Kencana, 2016).
Zulkarnain. Praktik Peradilan Pidana. (Malang: Setara Press, 2013).
B. Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
Indonesia, Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun
;
________. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP).
________. Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan
Kehakiman, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2009
Nomor 157, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Nomor 5076.
________. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jambi Nomor
/Pid.B/2019/PN.Jmb.
C. Jurnal
Putra, Yagie Sagita. “Penerapan Prinsip Ultra Petita Dalam Hukum Acara
Pidana Dipandang Dari Aspek Pertimbangan Hukum Putusan
Perkara Pidana”. Bengkulu Law Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, 2017.
Rubaea, Ach. “Putusan Ultra Petita”. Jurnal Mahkamah Konstitusi,
Volume 1, Nomor 1 Tahun 2004.