The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM HAKIM TERHADAP PUTUSAN ULTRA PETITA DALAM PERKARA KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR: 8/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN Yyk)
Judicial decisions in corruption cases frequently spark legal debates, particularly when the ruling differs from or exceeds the sentence requested by the Public Prosecutor. One principle often associated with this phenomenon is the Ultra Petita principle within criminal procedural law. The focus of this research on Decision Number 8/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN Yyk is of particular interest as the Panel of Judges increased the value of the substitute money (uang pengganti) beyond the prosecutor's request, while conversely, they did not grant the request for asset seizure. Based on this background, this study formulates two primary problems: First, what are the judge's legal considerations in rendering a verdict that exceeds the prosecutor's request in this case; and second, does such a verdict meet the qualifications of Ultra Petita and what is its legality under criminal procedural law. This research uses a normative juridical method aimed at examining legal principles and norms, including legal doctrines, legal systems, and statutory regulations related to the object of study. The approaches used in this research are the statutory approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. To support the analysis, this research is also complemented by field data obtained through interviews with legal practitioners to gain practical perspectives on judicial reasoning in criminal judgments. The analysis employs the theory of judicial reasoning and the ultra petita principle in criminal cases. The results of this study indicate that the qualification of Ultra Petita in criminal procedural law is a legal and valid action. The boundaries for judges in criminal cases refer rigidly to the Indictment (Surat Dakwaan) as regulated in Article 182 paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), rather than the prosecutor's Statement of Claims (Requisitoir). The legality of imposing a criminal sentence that exceeds the demand is based on Article 6 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009, which mandates judges to rule based on their conviction and valid evidence. Thus, the application of Ultra Petita in this case constitutes a rational and proportional exercise of judicial authority to achieve the objectives of punishment and maximize the recovery of state financial losses, rather than a legal deviation.
FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
NIM.: 22103040102 Jasmine Az-zahra Nasywa Nabila
PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM HAKIM TERHADAP PUTUSAN ULTRA PETITA DALAM PERKARA KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR: 8/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN Yyk) (Text)
PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM HAKIM TERHADAP PUTUSAN ULTRA PETITA DALAM PERKARA KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR: 8/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN Yyk) (Other)
HTML Summary of #76277 PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM HAKIM TERHADAP PUTUSAN ULTRA PETITA DALAM PERKARA KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR: 8/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN Yyk)