Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Pasal 242 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana tindak pidana sumpah palsu diatur sebagai perbuatan memberikan keterangan palsu di atas sumpah yang diwajibkan menurut hukum. Ketentuan tersebut menempatkan unsur “keerangan palsu di atas sumpah” dan unsur kesengajaan sebagai inti delik. Perbuatan ini memiliki implikasi terhadap proses peradilan pidana karena dapat memengaruhi keyakinan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan. Namun dalam praktiknya Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Lhokseumawe Nomor 65/Pid.B/2017/Pn.Lsm membuktikan tindak pidana sumpah palsu menghadapi kendala, khususnya dalam unsur kesengajaan dan ketidakbenaran keterangan yang diberikan di persidangan.

Tujuan dari penulisan studi kasus ini adalah untuk menganalisis pertimbangan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Lhokseumawe Nomor 65/Pid.B/2017/Pn.Lsm serta menilai apakah putusan tersebut telah mencerminkan asas keadilan, kepastian, dan kemanfaatan hukum.

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, yaitu penelitian hukum yang dilakukan dengan pendekatan studi kasus yang meneliti bahan kepustakaan berupa buku-buku, peraturan perundang-undangan, dokumen-dokumen yurispudensi, dan literature-literatur hukum yang berkaitan terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Lhokseumawe Nomor 65/Pid.B/2017/Pn.Lsm.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pada Putusan Nomor 65/Pid.B/2017/Pn.Lsm terdapat fakta-fata yang tidak dimuat dalam pertimbangan Majelis Hakim. Hal ini terkait dengan pembuktian unsur kesengajaan serta keterbatasan dalam optimalisasi kewenangan hakim dalam menindak sumpah palsu. Dalam putusannya belumlah memuat asas keadilan, dikarenakan Majelis Hakim tidak menyeluruh melihat fakta-fakta dipersidangan dan asas kepastian juga terkait dengan masalah putusan hakim yang rendah, dan unsur kemanfaatan masih memerlukan penguatan, khususnya dalam memberikan efek jera serta menjaga integritas peradilan.

Disarankan kepada Majelis hakim agar melihat fakta-fakta dipersidangan secara menyeluruh, hal ini agar mencapai tujuan hukum yang di harapkan, sehingga tidak terjadi permasalahan hukum yang mungkin akan timbul di kemudian hari.

Article 242 of the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) stipulates the criminal offense of perjury as the act of providing false testimony under oath when such oath is required by law. This provision identifies the elements of “false testimony under oath” and intent (mens rea) as the core components of the offense. Such conduct has significant implications for criminal proceedings, as it may influence the judge’s conviction in rendering a decision. However, in practice, the Decision of the District Court of Lhokseumawe No. 65/Pid.B/2017/PN Lsm demonstrates that the prosecution of perjury encounters obstacles, particularly in establishing the element of intent and the falsity of the testimony given during trial. The purpose of this case study is to analyze the legal reasoning of the panel of judges in the Decision of the District Court of Lhokseumawe No. 65/Pid.B/2017/PN Lsm, and to assess whether the decision reflects the principles of justice, legal certainty, and legal utility. This research employs a normative juridical method, namely legal research conducted through a case study approach by examining secondary legal materials, including books, statutory regulations, jurisprudential documents, and legal literature relevant to the Decision of the District Court of Lhokseumawe No. 65/Pid.B/2017/PN Lsm. The findings indicate that in the Decision of the District Court of Lhokseumawe No. 65/Pid.B/2017/PN Lsm, there were facts not incorporated into the panel’s legal considerations. This relates to the evidentiary assessment of the element of intent, as well as limitations in the optimal exercise of judicial authority in addressing perjury. The decision has not fully embodied the principle of justice, as the panel did not comprehensively consider all facts presented during the trial. Furthermore, the principle of legal certainty is also implicated, particularly due to the relatively lenient judgment, while the aspect of legal utility requires further strengthening, especially in ensuring a deterrent effect and safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary. It is recommended that the panel of judges comprehensively examine all facts presented during trial proceedings in order to achieve the intended objectives of the law and to prevent potential legal issues from arising in the future.