Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia yang bersifat retributif mendorong lahirnya pendekatan keadilan restoratif yang menekankan perdamaian, pemulihan korban, ganti rugi, dan tanggung jawab pelaku. Melalui Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Pedoman Mengadili Perkara Pidana Berdasarkan Keadilan Restoratif, hakim diberikan ruang untuk menerapkan pendekatan keadilan restoratif dalam memeriksa dan memutus perkara pidana. Namun, persoalan muncul ketika putusan yang telah mempertimbangkan keadilan restoratif tetap diajukan banding oleh Penuntut Umum ke Pengadilan Tinggi.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis alasan Jaksa Penuntut Umum mengajukan banding terhadap putusan Pengadilan Negeri yang telah diselesaikan melalui restorative justice, serta mengkaji pertimbangan Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi dalam memutus perkara yang telah diselesaikan dengan pendekatan restorative justice.

Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis empiris, dengan pengumpulan data melalui penelitian lapangan untuk memperoleh data primer melalui wawancara langsung dengan responden dan informan, serta penelitian kepustakaan untuk memperoleh data sekunder dengan menelaah buku, literatur, jurnal, dan peraturan perundang-undangan.

Jaksa Penuntut Umum mengajukan banding karena pidana yang dijatuhkan dinilai belum memenuhi rasa keadilan, dan sebagai evaluasi administratif sesuai pedoman penuntutan yang mewajibkan banding apabila pidana dijatuhkan kurang dari 1/2 (satu per dua) tuntutan. Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi menolak banding Jaksa Penuntut Umum dan menguatkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri, dengan pertimbangan tercapainya perdamaian dan pemulihan kerugian korban sebagai fakta persidangan

Jaksa Penuntut Umum diharapkan untuk lebih mengedepankan keadilan restoratif, khususnya dengan mempertimbangkan untuk tidak mengajukan banding pada perkara yang diselesaikan melalui perdamaian, demi mewujudkan tujuan pemulihan dan keadilan substantif dalam sistem peradilan pidana. Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi diharapkan konsisten menguraikan penerapan keadilan restoratif dalam pertimbangan putusan, agar putusan tidak hanya berorientasi pada pemidanaan tetapi juga mencerminkan keadilan, kemanfaatan, dan pemulihan hubungan sosial secara yuridis maupun sosial.

The retributive nature of the Indonesian criminal justice system has prompted the emergence of a restorative justice approach that emphasizes peace, victim restoration, restitution, and offender accountability. Through Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2024 concerning Guidelines for Adjudicating Criminal Cases Based on Restorative Justice, judges are granted the judicial discretion to apply a restorative justice approach during case examination and sentencing. However, a significant problem arises when decisions that meticulously incorporate restorative justice are still appealed by the Public Prosecutor to the High Court. This study aims to analyze the legal rationale behind the Public Prosecutor’s decision to file an appeal against a District Court judgment settled via restorative justice, and to evaluate the legal reasoning of High Court judges in adjudicating appealed cases that have previously been resolved using a restorative justice approach. This study employs an empirical-juridical research method. Data collection was conducted through field research to obtain primary data via direct interviews with respondents and informants, alongside library research to secure secondary data by examining books, legal literature, academic journals, and statutory regulations. The findings reveal that the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal primarily because the imposed criminal sentence was deemed insufficient to satisfy the sense of public justice, and also as an administrative evaluation pursuant to prosecution guidelines which mandate an appeal if the sentence imposed is less than half (1/2) of the prosecutor's original sentencing demand. Conversely, the High Court Panel of Judges rejected the Public Prosecutor's appeal and upheld the District Court's decision, reasoning that the realization of peace and the restoration of the victim's losses constituted valid, established trial facts. Public prosecutors are recommended to further prioritize restorative justice, specifically by refraining from pursuing appellate review in cases successfully resolved through amicable settlement, in order to manifest the goals of rehabilitation and substantive justice within the criminal justice system. Furthermore, High Court Panels of Judges are expected to consistently and comprehensively delineate the application of restorative justice within their judicial reasoning, ensuring that court decisions are not merely punishment-oriented but also mirror the principles of justice, utility,