Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Indonesia dan malaysia sama-sama telah meratifikasi convention on the rights of the child (crc), namun keduanya menetapkan usia minimum pertanggungjawaban pidana (macr) yang belum sepenuhnya selaras dengan standar internasional. indonesia menetapkan macr pada usia 12 tahun melalui uu sppa, sedangkan malaysia menetapkan macr pada usia 10 tahun melalui penal code dengan sistem dua lapis berdasarkan doktrin doli incapax. general comment no. 24 (2019) merekomendasikan macr tidak lebih rendah dari 14 tahun, sehingga kedua negara berada di bawah ambang tersebut. penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan pengaturan macr dalam sistem hukum indonesia dan malaysia, serta menjelaskan kesesuaiannya dengan standar hukum internasional perlindungan anak, khususnya crc, general comment no. 24 (2019), dan beijing rules. penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang bersifat deskriptif-analitis, menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan, perbandingan, dan konseptual. bahan hukum dikumpulkan melalui studi kepustakaan dan dianalisis secara kualitatif dengan teknik penarikan kesimpulan deduktif. hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan macr kedua negara dipengaruhi tidak hanya tradisi hukum civil law indonesia dan common law malaysia, tetapi juga mekanisme reformasi yang tersedia: macr indonesia dinaikkan dari 8 menjadi 12 tahun melalui putusan mahkamah konstitusi nomor 1/puu-viii/2010 sebelum dikodifikasi dalam uu sppa, sedangkan macr malaysia bertahan pada usia 10 tahun sebagai warisan penal code kolonial 1936 tanpa mekanisme judicial review yang setara. terhadap crc, keduanya memenuhi kewajiban formal, namun indonesia lebih unggul karena kewajiban diversi formal dalam uu sppa yang tidak dimiliki malaysia. terhadap general comment no. 24, indonesia berjarak dua tahun dan malaysia empat tahun dari ambang 14 tahun, dengan sistem dua batas usia malaysia dikritik eksplisit oleh komite. terhadap beijing rules, uu sppa mencerminkan prinsip minimum intervention yang tidak dimiliki padanannya di malaysia. secara keseluruhan, indonesia lebih dekat dengan arah perlindungan anak internasional, meskipun keduanya belum sepenuhnya memenuhi standar tersebut. indonesia disarankan menaikkan macr menuju 14 tahun melalui revisi uu sppa disertai perluasan jangkauan diversi melampaui pembatasan pasal 7 ayat (2). malaysia disarankan membangun kerangka diversi formal dalam child act 2001 dan menaikkan macr secara signifikan.

Indonesia and Malaysia have both ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); however, neither country has established a Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) that fully complies with international standards. Indonesia sets the MACR at 12 years of age under the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law (Law on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System/UU SPPA), while Malaysia establishes the MACR at 10 years of age under the Penal Code, applying a two-tier system based on the doctrine of doli incapax. General Comment No. 24 (2019) recommends that the MACR should not be set below 14 years of age, placing both countries below the internationally recommended threshold. This study aims to examine the regulation of the MACR within the legal systems of Indonesia and Malaysia and to assess its conformity with international child protection standards, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 24 (2019), and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules). This research employs a normative legal research method with a descriptive-analytical approach. It adopts statutory, comparative, and conceptual approaches. Legal materials were collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively using a deductive method of legal reasoning. The findings demonstrate that the differences in the MACR between the two countries are attributable not only to Indonesia's civil law tradition and Malaysia's common law system, but also to the distinct legal reform mechanisms available in each jurisdiction. Indonesia increased its MACR from 8 to 12 years of age through Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PUU-VIII/2010, which was subsequently codified in the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law (UU SPPA). By contrast, Malaysia has retained the MACR at 10 years of age as a legacy of the 1936 Penal Code, without an equivalent mechanism of constitutional judicial review. In relation to the CRC, both countries have fulfilled their formal treaty obligations; however, Indonesia provides stronger protection through the statutory obligation to pursue diversion, a mechanism not formally provided for under Malaysian law. With respect to General Comment No. 24 (2019), Indonesia remains two years below the recommended minimum age of 14, whereas Malaysia falls four years short. Furthermore, Malaysia's dual-age framework has been expressly criticized by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Regarding the Beijing Rules, Indonesia's UU SPPA reflects the principle of minimum intervention, a principle that has no equivalent statutory framework in Malaysia. Overall, Indonesia's juvenile justice system is more closely aligned with international child protection standards, although neither country has yet achieved full compliance with those standards. This study recommends that Indonesia gradually increase the MACR to 14 years of age through amendments to the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law (UU SPPA) while expanding the scope of diversion beyond the limitation prescribed in Article 7(2). Malaysia is recommended to establish a formal statutory diversion framework within the Child Act 2001 and to substantially increase its MACR in accordance with international child rights standards.