Electronic Theses and Dissertation

KESELARASAN PENGATURAN UNJUK RASA DALAM PASAL 256 KITAB UNDANG-UNDANG HUKUM PIDANA TERHADAP PRINSIP-PRINSIP HAK ASASI MANUSIA

Viera Ameilia
Rizanizarli
Iskandar A. Gani

ABSTRAK

Pengaturan “unjuk rasa” dalam Pasal 256 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana memuat sanksi pidana terhadap penyelenggaraan unjuk rasa tanpa pemberitahuan kepada pihak berwenang yang berpotensi mengganggu kepentingan umum atau menimbulkan keonaran. Ketentuan tersebut menimbulkan persoalan mengenai keselarasannya dengan prinsip-prinsip hak asasi manusia sebagaimana diatur dalam Standar Norma dan Pengaturan Nomor 5 tentang Hak atas Kebebasan Berpendapat dan Berekspresi. Persoalan tersebut berkaitan dengan ketidakjelasan frasa “terganggunya kepentingan umum” serta luasnya diskresi aparat dalam penerapan mekanisme pemberitahuan yang berpotensi menimbulkan pembatasan terhadap kebebasan berunjuk rasa, meskipun mekanisme yang dianut pada dasarnya merupakan pemberitahuan, bukan perizinan. Selain itu, pergeseran dari sanksi administratif menjadi sanksi pidana dalam Pasal 256 KUHP menimbulkan persoalan mengenai penerapan prinsip proporsionalitas dan ultimum remedium, serta implikasinya terhadap kebebasan berunjuk rasa dibandingkan dengan pengaturan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 1998 tentang Kemerdekaan Menyampaikan Pendapat di Muka Umum.
Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis keselarasan pengaturan unjuk rasa dalam Pasal 256 KUHP dengan prinsip-prinsip hak asasi manusia, kesesuaian sanksi pidananya dengan prinsip proporsionalitas dan ultimum remedium, serta implikasi normatifnya terhadap kebebasan berunjuk rasa dalam perbandingannya dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 1998 tentang Kemerdekaan Menyampaikan Pendapat di Muka Umum.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual. Pendekatan tersebut dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan dan studi dokumen terhadap bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Data yang diperoleh kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif dengan metode deskriptif-analitis dan preskriptif-analitis melalui interpretasi hukum serta konstruksi argumentasi. Analisis dilakukan melalui sinkronisasi hukum dan pendekatan asas untuk menilai keselarasan norma dan implikasi normatif, serta penerapan asas ultimum remedium dan proporsionalitas, sehingga menghasilkan kesimpulan serta rekomendasi normatif terkait penerapan ketentuan yang dikaji.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa secara normatif pengaturan unjuk rasa dalam Pasal 256 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana pada dasarnya telah selaras dengan prinsip-prinsip hak asasi manusia yakni prinsip universalitas, tidak dapat dicabut, dan kewajiban negara dalam menjaga keseimbangan antara kebebasan berkumpul dan kepentingan umum. Namun, keselarasan tersebut belum sepenuhnya terwujud karena masih terdapat tantangan implementasi berupa ketidakjelasan frasa “gangguan kepentingan umum”, luasnya diskresi aparat, serta potensi pembatasan yang tidak seragam yang berpotensi memengaruhi prinsip non-diskriminasi serta prinsip tidak dapat dibagi, saling terhubung, dan saling terkait. Dari perspektif proporsionalitas dan ultimum remedium, sanksi pidana pengaturan unjuk rasa dalam Pasal 256 KUHP secara normatif menunjukkan pembatasan yang selektif dan rasional, tetapi dalam praktik berpotensi menimbulkan ketidakseimbangan akibat kekaburan norma dan belum optimalnya penempatan hukum pidana sebagai upaya terakhir. Ketentuan ini mencerminkan pergeseran dari pendekatan administratif ke pendekatan pidana bersyarat, pemidanaan hanya dimungkinkan apabila terpenuhi unsur kumulatif sehingga tetap menjaga keseimbangan antara ketertiban umum dan hak konstitusional. Namun, perluasan ke ranah pidana berpotensi menimbulkan multitafsir akibat kekaburan norma yang memperluas diskresi aparat.
Disarankan agar dilakukan penegasan rumusan Pasal 256 KUHP dengan menetapkan parameter yang jelas mengenai frasa "terganggunya kepentingan umum", "keonaran", "huru-hara", serta batasan kerusakan yang dapat dipidana, disertai penyusunan pedoman penerapan yang mengedepankan prinsip proporsionalitas dan ultimum remedium guna menjamin kepastian hukum serta mencegah penyalahgunaan kewenangan.

Kata Kunci: Pengaturan Unjuk Rasa dalam Pasal 256 KUHP, Prinsip-Prinsip Hak Asasi Manusia, Proporsionalitas, dan Ultimum Remedium.

THE ALIGNMENT OF THE REGULATION OF DEMONSTRATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 256 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES Viera Ameilia Rizanizarli Iskandar A. Gani ABSTRACT The regulation of demonstrations under Article 256 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana) imposes criminal sanctions on the organization of public demonstrations conducted without prior notification to the competent authorities where such demonstrations have the potential to disrupt the public interest or cause public disorder. This provision raises concerns regarding its compatibility with human rights principles as set forth in Standards and Norms No. 5 on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (Standar Norma dan Pengaturan Nomor 5 tentang Hak atas Kebebasan Berpendapat dan Berekspresi). These concerns arise from the ambiguity of the phrase “disruption to the public interest” and the broad discretion granted to law enforcement authorities in implementing the notification mechanism, which may result in undue restrictions on the freedom of assembly, despite the legal framework adopting a notification rather than a permit-based system. Furthermore, the shift from administrative sanctions to criminal sanctions under Article 256 of the Criminal Code raises questions concerning the application of the principles of proportionality and ultimum remedium, as well as its implications for the protection of the freedom of assembly when compared with Law Number 9 of 1998 on the Freedom of Expression in Public. This study aims to analyze the compatibility of the regulation of demonstrations under Article 256 of the Criminal Code with human rights principles, examine whether the criminal sanctions reflect the principles of proportionality and ultimum remedium, and assess their normative implications for the protection of the freedom of assembly in comparison with Law Number 9 of 1998 on the Freedom of Expression in Public. This research employs a normative juridical legal research method using statutory and conceptual approaches. The study was conducted through library research and document analysis of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The collected data were analyzed qualitatively using descriptive-analytical and prescriptive methods through legal interpretation and legal reasoning. The analysis was carried out by applying legal synchronization, principle-based analysis, and comparative legal approaches to evaluate the consistency of legal norms and their implications, thereby producing normative conclusions and recommendations regarding the implementation of the relevant legal provisions. The findings indicate that, from a normative perspective, the regulation of demonstrations under Article 256 of the Indonesian Criminal Code is generally compatible with human rights principles, particularly the principles of universality, inalienability of rights, and the State's obligation to maintain a balance between freedom of assembly and the public interest. Nevertheless, such compatibility has not been fully achieved due to several implementation challenges, including the ambiguity of the phrase “disruption to the public interest,” the broad discretion afforded to law enforcement authorities, and the potential for inconsistent restrictions, which may affect the principles of non-discrimination as well as the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights. From the perspective of proportionality and ultimum remedium, the criminal sanctions under Article 256 of the Criminal Code normatively reflect a selective and rational limitation. However, in practice, they may create legal imbalance due to the vagueness of the legal provisions and the suboptimal application of criminal law as a measure of last resort. The provision also reflects a shift from an administrative approach to a model of conditional criminalization, under which criminal liability may only be imposed when the cumulative legal elements are fulfilled, thereby maintaining a balance between public order and constitutional rights. Nevertheless, the expansion of criminal regulation into this area has the potential to generate multiple interpretations because of the ambiguity of the legal norms, which may broaden the discretionary authority of law enforcement officials. Based on these findings, it is recommended that Article 256 of the Criminal Code be clarified by establishing clear parameters for the phrases “disruption of the public interest,” as well as defining the threshold of damage that may give rise to criminal liability. It is further recommended that implementing guidelines be developed based on the principles of proportionality and ultimum remedium to ensure legal certainty and prevent the abuse of discretionary powers. Keywords: Regulation of Demonstrations under Article 256 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, Human Rights Principles, Proportionality, Ultimum Remedium.