ABSTRAK
Surat dakwaan yang dinyatakan hakim batal demi hukum setelah pemeriksaan materi pokok perkara dan pembacaan tuntutan menjadi menarik dilakukan pengkajian karena hakim menyatakannya dalam putusan akhir. Hakim dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Simalungun Nomor: 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Sim menyatakan surat dakwaan penuntut umum batal demi hukum setelah pemeriksaan materi pokok perkara dan pembacaan tuntutan.
Permasalahan yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah pertama, mengapa hakim menjatuhkan putusan yang menyatakan surat dakwaan batal demi hukum setelah pemeriksaan pokok perkara dan pembacaan tuntutan dikaitkan dengan ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku? Kedua, apakah dakwaan yang dinyatakan batal demi hukum dalam Putusan Nomor 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Sim, dapat diajukan kembali bilamana dikaitkan dengan asas nebis in idem?
Metode penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif, sifat penelitian deskriptif analitis, sumber data adalah data sekunder, bahan hukum primer yaitu Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, Kitab Undang-Undang-Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana, UU Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, dan Putusan Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Simalungun Nomor: 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Simalungun. Teknik pengumpulan data melalui studi pustaka, dan analisis data didasarkan pada kualitatif.
Majelis hakim menjatuhkan putusan surat dakwaan batal demi hukum setelah pemeriksaan pokok perkara dalam Putusan Nomor 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Sim didasarkan pada uraian karena dakwaan tidak cermat, tidak jelas, dan tidak lengkap. Orang yang bernama Rikal dalam surat dakwaan tidak pernah dihadirkan, dan tidak dilakukan tindakan apapun, tidak menjadikannya Daftar Pencarian Orang. Peran masing-masing pelaku juga tidak dijelaskan. Jumlah uang yang diterima terdakwa dari Rikal tidak bersesuaian dengan fakta di persidangan. Putusan demikian sesuai ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku bertentangan dengan asas legalitas, dan menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum tentang pembatalan surat dakwaan. Surat dakwaan yang dinyatakan batal demi hukum melekat asas ne bis in idem karena telah dilakukan pemeriksaan terhadap materi pokok perkara dan pembacaan tuntutan pidana dan putusan tersebut terkategori sebagai putusan lepas sehingga melekat asas ne bis in idem artinya penuntut umum tidak bisa lagi mengajukan perkara tersebut untuk diperiksa, dituntut dan diadili dua kali bila suatu waktu diajukan ke persidangan melainkan hanya bisa diajukan upaya kasasi ke Mahkamah Agung. Agar Pasal 156 ayat (2), Pasal 143 ayat (2) huruf b, dan Pasal 191 ayat (2) KUHAP diinterpretasi secara luas agar putusan lepas bukan saja hanya terkait dengan suatu peristiwa terbukti yang bukan peristiwa pidana, tetapi juga termasuk karena surat dakwaan tidak cermat, tidak lengkap, dan tidak jelas. Agar penuntut umum mengajukan upaya hukum kasasi ke Mahkamah Agung, bukan ke Pengadilan Tinggi.
Kata Kunci: Surat dakwaan, dakwaan batal demi hukum, pemeriksaan materi pokok perkara, dan asas nebis in idem.
ABSTRACT
It is very interesting to analyze when a summons was legally annulled by the judge after substance of the case was examined and indictment was read and it is stated as the last decision. The judge’s verdict at the Simalungun District Court No. 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Sim stated that the prosecutor’s summons was legally annulled and the substance of the case was examined and the indictment was read.
The problems of the research were as follows: first, why the judge handed down the verdict which stated that the summons was legally annulled and the examination of the substance of the case and the indictment was related to the prevailing legal provisions; and secondly, whether the summons which was legally annulled in the Verdict No. 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Sim could be summoned before the court when it is related to the principle of ne bis in idem.
The research was normative with descriptive analytic method. The data were secondary data with primary legal materials such as the Criminal Code, Law No. 48/2009 on Judiciary, and Judge’s Verdict at the Simalungun District Court No. 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Simalungun. The data were gathered by conducting library research and analyzed qualitatively.
The judge’s verdict which stated that the summons was legally annulled after the examination of the substance off the case and the indictment in the Verdict No. 19/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Sim was based on the explanation that the indictment was inaccurate, unclear, and incomplete. The person, Rikal, in the summons was not presented, no action was done, and he was listed in the Man Wanted List. Besides that, each person’s role was not explained. The amount of money received by Rikal was not in line with the fact in the proceedings. According to the legal provisions, the judge’s verdict was contrary to the principle of Justice and brought about legal uncertainty in the abrogation of the summons. The abrogation of the summons is bound to the principle of ne bis in idem since the subject of the case had been examined and the indictment had been read so that the verdict was categorized as acquittal and the principle of ne bis in dem was bound which indicated that the prosecutor could not file the case to be examined, indicted, and tried twice; it could only be appealed to the Supreme Court. It is recommended that Article 156, paragraph 2, Article 143, paragraph 2 letter b, and Article 191, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code be interpreted widely, acquittal is not only related to a criminal case but also the summons is inaccurate, incomplete, and unclear, and the prosecutor appeal the case to the Supreme Court and not to the Higher Court.
Keywords : Summons, Indictment is legally Annulled, Examination of the Subject of the Case, Principle of Ne bis in Idem
