Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Meureudu Nomor 8/Pid.B/2025/PN. Mrn menjatuhkan pidana terhadap terdakwa atas tindak pidana penganiayaan terhadap jurnalis semata-mata berdasarkan Pasal 351 ayat (1) KUHP tentang Penganiayaan, tanpa mempertimbangkan kedudukan korban sebagai jurnalis yang dilindungi secara khusus dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 1999 tentang Pers. Kasus ini mencerminkan persoalan yang lebih luas dalam penegakan hukum di Indonesia, di mana kekerasan terhadap jurnalis masih kerap diproses dengan ketentuan umum. Persoalan inilah yang mendasari penelitian ini, khususnya terkait ketepatan surat dakwaan jaksa penuntut umum serta sejauh mana pertimbangan hakim telah mencerminkan asas keadilan dan kemanfaatan bagi korban.
Penulisan studi kasus ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis ketidaktepatan rumusan surat dakwaan tersebut serta untuk menganalisis sejauh mana pertimbangan hakim belum memenuhi dan mencerminkan terwujudnya keadilan dan kemanfaatan hukum dalam perkara ini.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Data penelitian diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan terhadap bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier yang berkaitan dengan objek penelitian, kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif.
Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa jaksa penuntut umum kurang cermat dalam merumuskan surat dakwaan karena hanya menggunakan dakwaan tunggal berdasarkan Pasal 351 ayat (1) KUHP tanpa mempertimbangkan Pasal 18 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 1999 tentang Pers sebagai lex specialis, padahal perbuatan terdakwa tidak hanya mengandung unsur kekerasan fisik tetapi juga disertai tindakan yang secara nyata menghambat kegiatan jurnalistik korban. Pertimbangan hakim dalam perkara ini belum sepenuhnya memenuhi asas keadilan dan kemanfaatan karena perkara masih dipandang sebagai tindak pidana penganiayaan umum tanpa menempatkan korban sebagai jurnalis, sehingga putusan yang dihasilkan belum mampu memberikan efek pencegahan yang optimal maupun jaminan rasa aman bagi jurnalis dalam menjalankan tugasnya.
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian tersebut, disarankan agar penegak hukum lebih cermat dalam menerapkan ketentuan hukum terhadap perkara yang melibatkan jurnalis dengan mempertimbangkan Undang-Undang Pers sebagai lex specialis guna memberikan perlindungan hukum yang optimal terhadap kemerdekaan pers.

Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Meureudu Number 8/Pid.B/2025/PN. Mrn sentenced the defendant for the crime of assault against a journalist solely based on Article 351 (1) of the KUHP regarding Assault, without considering the victim’s status as a journalist—a group specifically protected under UU No. 40 of 1999 on the Press. This case reflects a broader issue in law enforcement in Indonesia, where violence against journalists is still often prosecuted under general provisions. This issue forms the basis of this study, particularly regarding the accuracy of the public prosecutor’s indictment and the extent to which the judge’s considerations have reflected the principles of justice and the best interests of the victim. The purpose of this case study is to analyze the inaccuracies in the formulation of the indictment and to assess the extent to which the judge’s deliberations have failed to fulfill and reflect the realization of justice and the benefits of the law in this case. The research method used is the normative legal research method. Research data were obtained through a literature review of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources related to the research subject and were then analyzed qualitatively. The results of this study indicate that the public prosecutor was not thorough enough in drafting the indictment, as he relied solely on a single charge under Article 351 (1) of the KUHP without considering Article 18(1) of UU No. 40 of 1999 on the Press as lex specialis, even though the defendant’s actions not only involved physical violence but were also accompanied by acts that tangibly obstructed the victim’s journalistic activities. The judge’s reasoning in this case has not fully satisfied the principles of justice and public interest because the case was still treated as a general criminal act of assault without recognizing the victim’s status as a journalist; consequently, the resulting verdict has failed to provide an optimal deterrent effect or ensure a sense of security for journalists in the performance of their duties. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that law enforcement officials be more meticulous in applying legal provisions to cases involving journalists, taking into account the Press Law as lex specialis in order to provide optimal legal protection for press freedom.