Electronic Theses and Dissertation

KUHP membahas tentang aborsi dalam beberapa pasal, yaitu Pasal 299 dan
Pasal 346-349 KUHP. Sedangkan Undang-Undang Nomor 36 Tahun 2009 tentang
Kesehatan (UU Kesehatan) mengatur mengenai sanksi pidana atas perbuatan aborsi
dalam Pasal 194 secara khusus. Namun, atas perbuatan aborsi yang terjadi seperti
dalam Putusan Nomor 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp dan Putusan Nomor
124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw ketentuan pidana yang diterapkan berbeda. Seharusnya
berdasarkan asas lex posteriori derogat legi priori, UU Kesehatan lebih tepat untuk
diterapkan atas perbuatan tindak pidana aborsi.
Penelitian ini bertujuan menjelaskan pertimbangan hakim atas penerapan
ketentuan hukum pidana pada tindak pidana aborsi dalam Putusan Nomor
252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp dan Putusan Nomor 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw, dan akibat
hukum dalam penerapan ketentuan hukum pidana yang berbeda pada Putusan
Nomor 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp dan Putusan Nomor 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw.
Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam kajian ini adalah yuridis normatif,
dengan pendekatan yang digunakan perundang-undangan, kasus, konseptual, dan
pendekatan historis. Data yang telah dikumpulan melalui bahan hukum primer,
sekunder, dan tersier dianalisis dengan cara kualitatif yang bersifat analisis
deskriptif.
Hasil Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan Putusan Nomor
252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp dan Putusan Nomor 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw hakim
dinilai telah keliru dalam menerapkan ketentuan hukum pidana dalam Putusan
Nomor: 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp meskipun telah berdasarkan dakwaan alternatif
yang dihadapkan jaksa. akibat hukum yang ditimbulkan atas penerapan ketentuan
hukum pidana yang berbeda seperti dalam Putusan Nomor 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp
dan Putusan Nomor 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw antara lain: 1) Jaksa Penuntut
Umum telah mengabaikan azaz lex specialis derogat legi generalis; 2) terjadinya
ketidakpastian hukum, 3) terjadinya ketidakadilan hukum.
Disarankan kepada Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam menghadapkan dakwaan
alternatif terhadap terdakwa kepada Majelis Hakim dengan dakwaan yang
ketentuan hukum pidananya bersifat khusus. Majelis Hakim disarankan dapat
mewujudkan tujuan hukum diantaranya kepastian hukum dan keadilan hukum
sehingga tidak terjadi lagi disparitas putusan pengadilan.

The Criminal Code discusses abortion in several articles, namely Article 299 and Articles 346-349 of the Criminal Code. Meanwhile, Law Number 36 of 2009 concerning Health (Health Law) regulates criminal sanctions for the act of abortion in Article 194 specifically. However, for acts of abortion that occur as in Decision Number 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp and Decision Number 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw the criminal provisions applied are different. Based on the principle of lex posteriori derogat legi priori, the Health Law is more appropriate to apply to criminal acts of abortion. This research aims to explain the judge's considerations regarding the application of criminal law provisions to the crime of abortion in Decision Number 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp and Decision Number 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw, and the legal consequences in implementing the provisions different criminal laws in Decision Number 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp and Decision Number 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw. The type of research used in this study is normative juridical, with legislative, case, conceptual and historical approaches used. Data that has been collected through primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials is analyzed using qualitative methods which are descriptive analysis. The research results show that based on Decision Number 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp and Decision Number 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw, it shows that the judge's considerations in deciding a case are based on the charges presented by the Public Prosecutor. The legal consequences arising from the application of different criminal law provisions as in Decision Number 252/Pid.B/2012/PN.Plp and Decision Number 124/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Liw include: 1) The Public Prosecutor has ignored the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generalis; 2) the occurrence of legal uncertainty, 3) the occurrence of legal injustice. It is recommended that the Public Prosecutor present alternative charges against the defendant to the Panel of Judges with charges that have special criminal law provisions. It is recommended that the Panel of Judges be able to realize legal objectives, including legal certainty and legal justice, so that disparities in court decisions no longer occur