eprintid: 45147
rev_number: 13
eprint_status: archive
userid: 13116
dir: disk0/00/04/51/47
datestamp: 2021-11-02 11:05:22
lastmod: 2021-11-02 11:05:22
status_changed: 2021-11-02 11:05:22
type: thesis
metadata_visibility: show
creators_name: Fifi Nurcahyati, NIM.: 17103040001
title: ANALISIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI
NOMOR 77/PUU-XII/2014 MENGENAI PEMBUKTIAN TINDAK PIDANA ASAL
DALAM CONCURSUS TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG
ispublished: pub
subjects: ek_huk
subjects: pid_
divisions: il_hum
full_text_status: restricted
keywords: Dissenting opinion, judicial review, dalil permohonan; penalaran hukum
note: Pembimbing: Dr. Linda Darnela, S.Ag., M.Hum.
abstract: The consideration of judges assembly on constitutional court is the
important thing to determine quality of judges by their decision. In the dissenting
opinion judges Alexander Mawarta about proof of predicate offerance was
considered in the handling money laundering case on the proof number 10.Pid-
Sus-TPK//2014/PN.JKT.PST and those decision was considered criged to
defendant rights as guarantee in the Constitution 1945. However, those plea
rejected with the decision of court judge that has differential about interpretation
of Article 2 Paragraph (2), Article 3, Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph (1) and Article
69 Constitution 8 Year 2010. This research is analysting of decision of
constitutional court number 77/PUU-XII/2014 about proof of predicate ofference
about concursus money laundering crime that reviewed from materiil aspect and
law reasoning.
This kind of this research is library research. The characteristic of this
research is descriptive-analystic. The approach in this research is using the
juridical-normative approach. The data of this research is struggled by analystic
and using the deductive-qualitative.
Theresults of this research to the decision of constitutional court number
77/PUU-XII/2014 is conclused some of thing: first, reviewed from the materiil
aspect, judges assembly is no fulfill materiil aspect because two of judges
assembly has different way in applying and interpreting of Article 2 Paragraph
(2), Article 3, Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph (1) about the phrase “he expected”
who presuming that these phrase is core of delik and should be proofed, if did‟not
proven, so did‟t has further of criminal crime and Article 69 who presuming that
some should be proofed with indictment money laundering so its could be proven
on of their predicate ofference. Secondly, reviewed from legal reasoning aspect is
conclusing that argumentation that was buit by judge assembly give legal
considering that not balance. Two of judges assembly are not using method that is
used by seven judges on their argumentation and reffering just to the context of
the constitution and no reffering of substance from the context of Article 69
Constitution 8 Year 2010. Beside that, both of judges were most saw the justice
that applicant hope. Therefore, both of judges were applying princip of legal
utility as satisfiying value or benefit for applicant without consider of substance
from article that tested.
Keyword: Dissennting Opinion, Judicial Review, Judgment, Predicate
Ofference,Concursus, Money Laundering.
date: 2021-02-09
date_type: published
pages: 121
institution: UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
department: FAKULTAS  SYARIAH DAN HUKUM
thesis_type: skripsi
thesis_name: other
citation:   Fifi Nurcahyati, NIM.: 17103040001  (2021) ANALISIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 77/PUU-XII/2014 MENGENAI PEMBUKTIAN TINDAK PIDANA ASAL DALAM CONCURSUS TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG.  Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.   
document_url: https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/45147/1/17103040001_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA1.pdf
document_url: https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/45147/2/17103040001_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf