Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Pasal 19 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 Tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak (UU SPPA) menyebutkan “Identitas Anak, Anak Korban, dan/atau Anak Saksi wajib dirahasiakan dalam pemberitaan di media cetak ataupun elektronik”. Dalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri Ponorogo Nomor 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN Png identitas anak masih terpublikasi. Pasal 81 ayat (5) UU SPPA menyebutkan pidana penjara terhadap anak hanya digunakan sebagai upaya terakhir, namun ketentuan pasal tersebut belum terlaksana dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Ponorogo Nomor 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN Png.

Penulisan studi kasus ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis adanya ketentuan sistem peradilan pidana anak yang tidak sepenuhnya diterapkan dalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri Ponorogo Nomor 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN Png serta untuk menganalisis putusan hakim yang belum memenuhi rasa keadilan dan kepastian hukum terhadap anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum.

Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian jenis yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian hukum kepustakaan (library research) dengan pendekatan studi kasus. Data diperoleh dengan mengkaji bahan hukum seperti peraturan perundang-undangan, jurnal-jurnal hukum, karya ilmiah, dan pendapat ahli (doktrin).

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketentuan Pasal 19 UU SPPA tentang kewajiban menjaga kerahasiaan identitas anak yang berhadapan dengan hukum bertujuan untuk menghindarkan anak dari stigma negatif terhadap kelangsungan hidup, tumbuh dan kembang anak. Hakim tidak mempertimbangkan Pasal 81 ayat (5) UU SPPA bahwa pidana penjara terhadap anak hanya digunakan sebagai upaya terakhir. Sehingga putusan ini dinilai tidak memberikan keadilan dan kepastian hukum terhadap anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum.

Disarankan dalam mempublikasikan salinan putusan ke situs Direktori Putusan, petugas informasi harus lebih memperhatikan peraturan identitas para pihak berperkara khususnya terhadap identitas anak yang wajib dirahasiakan. Sehingga putusan tersebut tidak menimbulkan kerugian bagi pihak yang berperkara. Diharapkan kepada Majelis hakim untuk mempertimbangkan keadaan anak sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman pidana. Mengupayakan diversi sebagai jalan utama penyelesaian perkara anak dengan mengutamakan pendekatan keadilan restoratif. Hal yang demikian harus diperhatikan dan dicermati dengan baik agar menghasilkan putusan yang memenuhi keadilan dan kepastian hukum.

Article 19, paragraph (1) of Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (UU SPPA) states, "The identities of children, child victims, and/or child witnesses must be kept confidential in reports in both print and electronic media." However, in the Ponorogo District Court Decision No. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN Png, the child’s identity was still disclosed. Furthermore, Article 81, paragraph (5) of the UU SPPA states that imprisonment for children should only be used as a last resort, yet this provision was not adhered to in the Ponorogo District Court Decision No. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN Png. The objective of this case study is to analyze the failure to fully implement the provisions of the juvenile criminal justice system in the Ponorogo District Court Decision No. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN Png and to examine the judge's ruling, which did not meet the standards of justice and legal certainty for children in conflict with the law. This research is a type of normative juridical study, which is legal research based on literature (library research) using a case study approach. The data were obtained by reviewing legal materials such as legislation, legal journals, scholarly works, and expert opinions (doctrines). The findings of the research show that the provisions of Article 19 of the UU SPPA, which require the confidentiality of the identity of children in conflict with the law, aim to protect children from negative stigma that could impact their life, growth, and development. The judge did not take into account Article 81, paragraph (5) of the UU SPPA, which stipulates that imprisonment for children should only be used as a last resort. Therefore, this decision is considered to have failed to provide justice and legal certainty for the child in conflict with the law. It is recommended that when publishing case decisions on the Decision Directory website, information officers should be more attentive to regulations regarding the confidentiality of the identities of parties involved in the case, particularly the identities of children, which must be kept confidential. This would prevent harm to the parties involved. It is also suggested that the panel of judges consider the child’s circumstances before imposing criminal penalties. Efforts should be made to prioritize diversion as the primary means of resolving juvenile cases, emphasizing a restorative justice approach. This matter should be carefully addressed to ensure decisions meet the standards of justice and legal certainty.