Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Putusan Hakim yang Menjatuhkan Pidana Dibawah Batas Minimum Ancaman Sanksi Pidana dalam Pasal 112 Ayat (1) Uu Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 Tentang Narkotika (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2308 K / Pid.Sus /2018)

Abstract

The Narcotics Law contains a principle of minimum criminal sanctions, which is not present in other crimes, serving as the basis for judges in making decisions. This principle exists due to the special nature of narcotics offenses, requiring unique handling and sanctions. However, in Supreme Court Decision Number 2308 K/Pid.Sus/2018, this minimum penalty principle was set aside by the judges. The purpose of this research is to understand and analyze the regulation of SEMA Number 03 of 2015, the factors causing the issuance of SEMA that can override the law, and the criminal law policy regarding the imposition of penalties below the minimum limit for narcotics offenders. This type of research is normative juridical and descriptive, utilizing secondary data processed from primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection techniques include interviews and literature/documentation studies. This research employs qualitative analysis. Based on the research findings, it is concluded that SEMA Number 03 of 2015 regulates exceptions to the minimum criminal sanctions in the Narcotics Law, allowing for changes to the minimum sanctions in Articles 112 and 114 if the defendant is proven to be only a user for personal use. The reasons SEMA can override the minimum penalty threat in Article 112 paragraph (1) can be seen from the formation of the Narcotics Law, jurisprudence, Article 127 paragraph (1), and SEMA Number 4 of 2010. However, this application is not yet in accordance with legal norms and contradicts the principle of Lex Superior Derogat Legi Inferior. The legal policy of imposing penalties below the minimum stipulated in the Narcotics Law based on SEMA Number 3 of 2015 and previous judicial jurisprudence is inappropriate because it deviates from legal principles and is based on SEMA, which is administrative in nature, not a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA). Judges in Supreme Court Decision Number 2308 K/Pid.Sus/2018 should have correctly examined the application of the law to produce an appropriate decision.