Pandecta Indonesiana – Blog Hukum

Judul: Pandangan Kritis Seorang Hakim dalam Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia
Penulis: Binsar Gultom SH,SE,MH

Penerbit: Pustaka Bangsa Press Medan
Tahun: 2008
Tebal: 261 halaman

Titik tolak penanganan kasus pelanggaran HAM berat yang terjadi sebelum terbit UU No 26 Tahun 2000 tentang Pengadilan HAM telah secara eksplisit (tegas) diatur menurut Pasal 43 Ayat (2) UU Pengadilan HAM. Menurut penjelasan Pasal 43 Ayat (2) UU tersebut, “dalam hal DPR-RI mengusulkan dibentuknya Pengadilan HAM Adhoc, DPR mendasarkan pada dugaan telah terjadinya pelanggaran HAM yang berat yang dibatasi pada locus dan tempus delicti (tempat dan waktu peristiwa) tertentu yang terjadi sebelum diundangkannya UU ini”.

Berdasarkan ketentuan tersebut, penyidikan kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM Berat, tetap dapat dilaksanakan oleh Jaksa Agung tanpa terlebih dahulu dibentuk Pengadilan HAM Adhoc. Pengalaman Indonesia ketika penyelidikan dan penyidikan kasus pelanggaran HAM berat Timor Timur dan Tanjung Priok telah terlebih dahulu dilakukan oleh Komnas HAM dan Jaksa Agung, barulah kemudian dibentuk Pengadilan HAM Adhoc-nya berdasarkan Keputusan Presiden (Kepres) No 53 tahun 2001 oleh mantan Presiden Abdurrahman Wahid yang diperbaharui dengan Keppres No 96 Tahun 2001 oleh mantan Presiden Megawati Soekarnoputri kala itu.

Menurut amanat Pasal 20 Ayat (1) UU Pengadilan HAM-pun, telah tegas menyebutkan bahwa adanya dugaan pelanggaran HAM berat diperoleh berdasarkan temuan hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM. Dari hasil temuan itulah Komnas HAM memberikan kesimpulan kepada Penyidik Jaksa Agung untuk ditindaklanjuti hingga dibentuk Pengadilan HAM Adhoc.

Demikian salah satu cuplikan isi bab buku jilid II berjudul: Pandangan Kritis Seorang Hakim karya Binsar Gultom, SH, SE, MH Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Simalungun. Buku itu sendiri telah dibedah dan diluncurkan di Pascasarjana Ilmu Hukum Universitas Sumatera Utara (USU), Medan 16 Agustus 2008 di depan 19 orang akademisi profesor dan doktor Ilmu Hukum dari berbagai Perguruan Tinggi se-Indonesia. Bedah buku juga berlangsung di halaman kantor PN Simalungun Sumatera Utara Kamis 18 September 2008 di hadapan para Penegak Hukum (polisi, jaksa, hakim dan pengacara) serta Muspida plus Kabupaten Simalungun dan Kota Pematang Siantar.

Dalam buku jilid II tersebut diungkapkan bahwa DPR tak mungkin mengeluarkan rekomendasi pembentukan Pengadilan HAM Adhoc kepada presiden tanpa terlebih dahulu jaksa agung menindaklanjuti hasil temuan kesimpulan penyelidikan Komnas HAM. DPR-RI hanyalah memberi rekomendasi atau mengusulkan kepada presiden agar diterbitkan Keputusan Presiden (Keppres) tentang Pembentukan Pengadilan HAM Adhoc atas dugaan peristiwa pelanggaran HAM yang berat berdasarkan temuan Komnas HAM dan Jaksa Agung tersebut. Persoalannya, jika Presiden langsung membentuk Pengadilan HAM Adhoc, tanpa melalui penyelidikan dan penyidikan, tidak akan diketahui apakah peristiwa itu pelanggaran HAM berat atau tidak. Dan hal itu akan bertentangan dengan Pasal 43 dimaksud. Akibatnya, jika ternyata hasil penyelidikan dan penyidikan tersebut bukan merupakan kasus pelanggaran HAM berat, maka akan sia-sia dibentuk Pengadilan HAM Adhoc tersebut. Jika pihak Kejaksaan tetap bertahan dan bersikeras tidak bisa menyidik kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM berat masa lalu sebelum di bentuk Pengadilan HAM Adhoc adalah pendapat yang “keliru” dan “salah”.

Menyangkut tindakan seperti izin penyitaan, penahanan oleh Jaksa Agung, tidaklah batal demi hukum, tetapi bisa dilaksanakan melalui Ketua Pengadilan Negeri/HAM Jakarta Pusat, karena selain Pengadilan HAM nya sudah ada di Jakarta Pusat, Medan, Surabaya dan Makassar sesuai Pasal 45 UU Pengadilan HAM juga Pengadilan HAM Adhoc itu merupakan bagian yang tak terpisahkan dengan Peradilan Umum. Hal itu telah diatur secara tegas menurut Pasal 15 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 tahun 2004 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman yang menyatakan: “pengadilan khusus hanya bisa dibentuk dalam lingkungan peradilan umum”. Oleh karena itu, Pengadilan Khusus HAM dengan sendirinya harus masuk dalam lingkungan peradilan umum.

Jaksa Agung selaku penyidik dan penuntut adhoc, tak boleh begitu saja menolak dan mengembalikan hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM, tanpa memberi petunjuk yang jelas kekurangan hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM. Hal ini secara tegas diatur Pasal 20 Ayat (3) UU Pengadilan HAM, yang menyebutkan “bahwa dalam hal ketidaklengkapan tersebut, Jaksa Agung wajib memberi petunjuk, perihal kekurangan hasil penyelidikan Komnas HAM.

Bahkan, sesuai Pasal 19 ayat (1) huruf (g) UU Pengadilan HAM, penyidik Jaksa Agung dapat mengembangkan kasus tersebut dengan memerintahkan penyelidik Komnas HAM melakukan tindakan berupa: pemeriksaan surat, penggeledahan dan penyitaan, pemeriksaan setempat dan mendatangkan ahli dalam hubungannya dengan penyelidikan. Bila perlu Jaksa Agung sesuai wewenangnya dalam Pasal 11 ayat (1) dan Pasal 12 ayat (1) UU Pengadilan HAM, “dapat melakukan penangkapan dan penahanan untuk kepentingan penyidikan terhadap seseorang yang diduga keras melakukan pelanggaran HAM berat berdasarkan bukti permulaan yang cukup”.

Jadi sebenarnya, amanat UU Pengadilan HAM Indonesia sudah lebih dari cukup, hanya pelaksanaannya di lapangan belum sempurna. Di dunia ini tidak satu pun UU yang sempurna. Jika ada komitmen bersama untuk menuntaskan kekurangan penegakan hukum di bidang HAM lewat aparat penegak hukum selaku pihak yang melaksanakan amanat UU tersebut, pastilah penyelesaian kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM berat masa lalu dan sekarang dapat diselesaikan secara tuntas.

Adapun isi bab buku selanjutnya menyangkut: Kedudukan dan Fungsi Komisi Yudisial dalam pengawasan hakim dan pemilihan calon Hakim Agung, masalah Tindak Pidana Korupsi khususnya eksistensi Peradilan Tipikor, Dinamika Hukum di Indonesia dan Delik Pers. (SUARA PEMBARUAN 28/09/2008)

The Golkar Party has failed in its apparent attempt to keep chief justice Bagir Manan in office, after the House of Representatives decided to delay passing the Supreme Court bill this month amid mounting public resistance.

The delay means Bagir will have to retire on Oct. 6, 2008, when he turns 67, as stipulated in the prevailing Supreme Court law.

There has been growing suspicion among legislators that the country’s largest party was behind a bid for a House plenary session to be held this Friday to pass the much-criticized bill before Bagir retires next month at the age of 67.  The draft law proposes an extension of the retirement age of Bagir and seven other Supreme Court judges to 70 years. But most other major factions in the House rejected the immediate endorsement of the bill, following mounting opposition from community members, including former prominent justices.

“We haven’t finished discussions at the commission level, so we can’t stage a plenary meeting on Friday,” senior Golkar member and House Speaker Agung Laksono said after a meeting with the House consultative body on Thursday evening.

The House is scheduled to adjourn on Saturday for the Idul Fitri holidays, and will resume its activities on Oct. 6.Earlier on Thursday, legislators were baffled by the issuance of a letter from the House’s Commission III, which oversees legal affairs, requesting House leaders hold a snap plenary session on Friday to pass the bill.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Jakarta Post, was signed by Golkar legislator Aziz Syamsuddin — deputy chairman of Commission III, which deliberated the bill to revise the 1985 Supreme Court law.

“Commission III has finished discussing the revision of the Supreme Court law. That’s why we ask for the scheduling of a plenary meeting on Friday,” the letter read.

The letter bypassed four other commission leaders, including chairman Trimedya Pandjaitan from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) — the bill’s main opponent.

The letter also drew protests from other major factions.

“We smell something wrong here. Some commission members worked like dogs day and night to complete the deliberations, yet there is no urgency at all to finish it before Idul Fitri,” PDI-P legislator Ganjar Pranowo said.

“We demand that the public be involved in the debates before we pass the bill.”

Nasir Jamil of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and Lukman Hakim Saifuddin of the United Development Party (PPP) expressed similar concerns.

“The rushed deliberations will send another bad signal to the public. We must make it as transparent as possible to avoid allegations of wrongdoing,” Nasir said.

A legislator involved in the bill’s deliberations said there was a “grand design” to pass the bill this week, accusing Agung Laksono of being behind the rushed deliberations of the bill to let Bagir stay in office for another three years.

Bagir has long been affiliated with Golkar, his bid to head the Supreme Court in 2001 receiving the full support of the party. Critics allege this move was designed to have then Golkar chairman Akbar Tanjung acquitted of corruption charges by the court under Bagir’s leadership.

Some observers suggest there is a conflict of interest between certain parties and the government in retaining Bagir as chief justice.

With many legislators and other senior officials being convicted or charged in graft probes by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), keeping Bagir in office would mean decisions by the Supreme Court could be arranged or traded.

“From the very beginning, we knew the hasty revision of the bill was politically motivated,” said Emerson Yuntho of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW).

source : www.thejakartapost.com

Scores of senior Bali officials and community figures on Thursday said they would reject the seemingly inevitable passage of the controversial pornography bill by the House of Representatives. IGK Adi Putra, deputy chairman of the provincial legislature, urged House members to act carefully and not pass the bill hastily.
The bill, he went on, was unpopular with the majority of citizens in provinces across the country.
“Bali still rejects the bill. If the House of Representatives go ahead with plans to pass the bill, then we will treat it as an invalid legal product,” he warned. Adi Putra is an influential figure in the local chapter of the Golkar Party, the second most popular party in the province.

I Gusti Ngurah Harta, head of the Bali People’s Component (KRB), accused the bill of disrespecting the very foundation upon which the nation was built: the celebration of the country’s multiculturalism and pluralism.
“The bill is not the result of a common agreement by all elements of the nation. It surely does not accommodate the country’s pluralism,” he pointed out.
The KRB is an umbrella organization of local intellectuals and artists. In mid-2006, it organized a series of massive rallies to reject the first attempt to pass the bill. The rallies triggered an island-wide rejection of the bill, which at that time was still in draft form.

The outright rejection, including by the island’s governor and councilors, coupled with widespread opposition from several other provinces, forced the House to postpone passage of the bill. But efforts by legislators to revive the bill were not swayed by this rejection.
“If the bill is ratified by the House, I will lead the Balinese in a civil disobedience movement against it,” Harta said.
The House working committee deliberating the bill is set to table the final draft to the House’s plenary session in the next few weeks, with many contentious articles left unchanged.
To date, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and the Prosperous Peace Party (PDS) have rejected the bill and boycotted the bill’s deliberation.

Legislators from other parties, however, are moving forward with the process. Golkar legislator Harry Azhar Azis said the passage of the bill was inevitable, given the reluctance of groups supporting it to seek a compromise.

He revealed that unless there were widespread rallies against the bill across the country, the constellation (on the bill) would not change. Mahfudz Siddiq, a politician from the Islamic-based Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), a staunch supporter of the bill, claimed the passage of the bill would be a “Ramadan gift”.

According to the bill, pornography encompasses activities such as artwork or poetry – expressions capable of distinct interpretations by different groups or individuals. Such a broad definition worries Sekar Sari, who makes a living selling artwork and handicrafts at Sukawati Art Market in Gianyar.
Her bestselling items are a wooden keychain and bottle opener in the form of male genitalia.
“Many people buy these souvenirs because their shape and form make them laugh, not because they are able to arouse sexual desire,” she argued.
Nevertheless, if the bill is ratified, Sekar Sari would have to stop selling such items.

Article 21 of the bill allows any group or individual in society to take part in preventive measures, which, according to Sugi Lanus, would increase the possibility of clashes between civilian elements of society.
“Some groups will use the bill as a legal basis to take the law into their own hands, and surely we will see those groups carry out raids targeting facilities that display “pornographic” objects, including art exhibits and museums,” he warned.
(www.the jakartapost.com Sat, 09/13/2008 )

Senin sore (kemudian disebut Black Monday) lalu sekelompok lawyer dari law firm besar di AS menuju Pengadilan Kepailitan Federal New York. Mereka mengajukan permonan (motion) kepailitan kliennya Lehman Brothers, bisnis yang berusia 158 tahun, raksasa keuangan terbesar ke empat di A.S. Peristiwa ini mengguncang dunia. Terjangan ombaknya akan sampai ke negeri ini. Yang jelas pertama, berbagai perusahaan finansial yang terkait dengan Lehman akan pasang kuda-kuda. Investasi menurun dan ekspor kita ke AS akan turun, dan entah apa lagi.

Kuasa para pemohon pailit berdesakan di ruang sidang yang dipimpin Hakim James B.Peck. Lawyernya Lehman dari law firm Weil, Gostshal & Manges, dari lawyer JP Morgan dari Wachtel, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, lawyer Bank of New York and Melon dari Dewey & Leboueuf. Ada lagi lawyer Chevron, Citibank dll. Suasana tegang.