Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Cukai Rokok dan Kaitannya dengan Penyusunan Dakwaan Penuntut Umum (Analisis Putusan PN No. 16/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Pmk, Putusan PT No. 298/Pid.Sus/2022 PT SBY Dan Putusan MA No. 6267 K/Pid.Sus/2022)

Abstract

The indictment is the most crucial and fundamental document for a judge in examining a case. A judge can only examine a case based on the contents stipulated in the indictment, meaning the Panel of Judges cannot decide a case outside the scope of the indictment. Furthermore, the formulation and form of the indictment can influence the content of the court's verdict. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor is obligated to be meticulous in preparing the content and form of the indictment. Any errors in the indictment can result in a verdict being null and void ab initio, as seen in the High Court Decision No. 298/Pid.Sus/2022/PT SBY regarding a cigarette excise criminal case. This thesis addresses several research questions: 1) How are criminal excise offenses regulated in Indonesia 2) What is the relationship between the formulation of the indictment, the case examination, and the Judge's decision 3) How do the Judges’ considerations differ in the evidentiary process of excise criminal offenses and their relevance to the indictment's formulation in District Court Decision No. 16/Pid.Sus/2022/PN PMK, High Court Decision No. 298/Pid.Sus/2022/PT SBY, and Supreme Court Decision No. 6267 K/Pid.Sus/2022? The research method used is normative legal research, employing secondary data obtained from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials through library research, and the data analysis used is qualitative analysis. Criminal excise offenses are regulated in Law Number 39 of 2007 concerning Excise, specifically from Article 50 to Article 61. The indictment serves as a guideline, basis, and also a boundary for the Judge in conducting the examination, assessment, and consideration for passing the verdict. The form of the indictment affects the Judge's deliberation and the pronouncement of the verdict. District Court Decision No. 16/Pid.Sus/2022/PN PMK evaluated the Public Prosecutor's indictment as having an Alternative form and selected Article 54 of Law Number 39 of 2007 concerning Excise. Conversely, High Court Decision No. 298/Pid.Sus/2022/PT SBY deemed the Public Prosecutor's indictment to be unclear in form, leading to the prosecution being declared inadmissible. Meanwhile, in Supreme Court Decision No. 6267 K/Pid.Sus/2022, the Judge examined and read the indictment, concluding that the Public Prosecutor's indictment could be understood to be in the Alternative form. Consequently, the Supreme Court Panel of Judges determined that the Defendant's material act fulfilled Article 54 of Law No. 39 of 2007 concerning Excise.