Analisis Penerapan Sanksi Pidana dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Batusangkar Nomor 5/Pid.B/2024/PN Bsk terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Penodaan Agama

Abstract

Religion holds an essential role in the social order of Indonesian society. However, in practice, interreligious relations are not always harmonious and often give rise to tensions triggered by intolerance, divergent interpretations, and broader social dyn amics. Religious defamation remains a highly sensitive issue requiring careful and proportionate legal handling. This study aims to analyze the regulation of religious defamation within Indonesia’s criminal law system, assess the criminal liability of the perpetrator, and examine the application of criminal sanctions in the District Court Decision of Batusangkar No. 5/Pid.B/2024/PN Bsk. This research adopts a normative juridical method with a descriptive approach, employing statutory and case approaches. Th e data used are secondary in nature, collected through literature review and document study. The data were then analyzed qualitatively and concluded deductively. The findings reveal that the legal regulation of religious defamation remains partial and ambi guous, particularly under Article 156a of the Indonesian Criminal Code, thereby failing to ensure legal certainty. In the case at hand, the criminal liability of the defendant was deemed legally established, as elements of culpability, criminal capacity, a nd the absence of justifying or excusing grounds were fulfilled. However, the two year prison sentence imposed by the court is considered disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, which was carried out deliberately, repeatedly, and for financial gain . The court's reasoning placed greater emphasis on rehabilitation, while neglecting the balance with retributive and deterrent objectives. Furthermore, weaknesses in the prosecutorial strategy including the omission of relevant legal instruments such as th e Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law) and the absence of an appeal further undermined the effectiveness of criminal punishment. Accordingly, the decision does not fully reflect a comprehensive application of penal theory in safeguarding r eligious values and public order.