Penyelesaian Ganti Rugi terhadap Perkara Anak yang Berhadapan dengan Hukum Secara Diversi (Studi Kasus Penetapan Nomor: 2/Pent.Pid.Sus-Anak/2016/PN.Mdn)

Abstract

UU No.11/2012 tidak menjamin kepastian hukum dalam mencapai tujuan diversi perkara ABH/AKH. Diversi wajib, tapi ganti rugi tidak diwajibkan. UU No.11/2012 tidak memiliki kekuatan untuk mengeksekusi ganti rugi, tidak mengatur sanksi bagi pelaku / keluarganya yang tidak menepati janji ganti rugi kepada korban. Akibatnya sulit ditagih dan menjadi lebih rumit ketika korban / keluargnya menagih uang ganti rugi kepada penyidik. Bagaimana pengaturan ganti rugi dalam penyelesaian perkara ABH/AKH secara diversi, konsekuensi hukum penyelesaian ganti rugi, dan solusi penyelesaian janji membayar ganti rugi yang tidak ditepati oleh pelaku / keluarganya kepada korban. Jenis penelitian ini adalah normatif, bersifat deskriptif dan preskripsi. Sumber data adalah data sekunder, dikumpulkan dengan cara studi pustaka, dan dianalisis secara kualitatif. Pengaturan mengenai ganti rugi dalam penyelesaian perkara ABH/AKH secara diversi sesuai Pasal 5, Pasal 7 ayat (1), Pasal 29 ayat (1), dan Pasal 42 ayat (1) UU No.11/2012 wajib dilaksanakan oleh penyidik, namun hasil perdamaian berupa restitusi sesuai Pasal 11 huruf a UU No.11/2012 bukan mutlak, tapi alternatif. Akibatnya umumnya penyidik menyerahkan kesepakatan perdamaian sepenuhnya kepada pelaku dan korban. Konsekuensi hukum penyelesaian ganti rugi dalam praktek menimbulkan ketidakpastian bagi korban maupun keluarganya. Pelaku tidak bisa dipastikan akan membayar resitusi meskipun telah disepakatinya dengan korban. Bila pelaku ingkar janji, korban maupun penyidik tidak bisa mengeksekusi pembayaran restitusi tersebut, kecuali diajukan gugatan perdata. Pelaku tidak bisa dituntut secara pidana karena perjanjian bukan ranah hukum pidana. Solusi penyelesaian ganti rugi perkara ABH/AKH secara diversi yang telah ditetapkan pengadilan negeri tapi tidak dibayar oleh pelaku / keluarganya adalah memanggil pelaku / keluarganya oleh penyidik untuk membuat perjanjian kembali atas janji yang diingkari, dimonitor dan dibuat proteksi dalam perjanjian, akan melanjutkan perkara pidananya bila pelaku / keluarganya tidak membayar ganti rugi. Perlu PP tentang pelaksanaan ganti rugi secara diversi, dan/atau Perkapolri tentang pelaksanaan restitusi diversi atau setidak-tidaknya SOP penyidik. Penyidik sebagai fasilitator harus aktif dalam menentukan isi perjanjian kecuali dalam menentukan klausula kesepakatan jumlah ganti rugi. Agar UUSPPA diatur jaminan yuridis berupa sanksi bagi pelaku / keluarganya yang tidak menepati janji untuk membayar ganti rugi kepada korban / keluarganya. Agar Polresta Medan membuat SOP penyidik mengenai tata cara menagih janji pelaku kepada korban untuk membayar restitusi, meliputi standar permohonan restitusi diversi, restitusi yang tidak dibayar, dan konsekuensi hukum jika pelaku ingkar janji.

Law No.11/2012 does not guarantee legal certainty in achieving the goal of diversion in ABH/AKH cases. Diversion is mandatory, but compensation is not required. Law No.11/2012 does not have the power to execute compensation or regulate sanctions for perpetrators / their families who do not keep promises of compensation to victims. As a result, it is difficult to collect and becomes more complicated when the victim/his family collects compensation money from the investigator. How is the compensation arrangement in settlement of the ABH/AKH case by diversion, the legal consequences of the settlement of compensation, and the solution to the settlement of promises to pay compensation that the perpetrator / his family did not keep to the victim? This type of research is normative, descriptive and prescription. The Source of data is secondary data, collected using a literature study and analyzed qualitatively. Provisions regarding compensation in settlement of ABH/AKH cases by a diversion following Article 5, Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 29 paragraph (1), and Article 42 paragraph (1) Law No.11/2012 must be implemented by investigators. However, the results of peace in the form of restitution according to Article 11 letter an of Law No. 11/2012 is not absolute but alternative. As a result, investigators generally leave the peace agreement entirely to the perpetrator and the victim. The legal consequences of compensation settlements in practice create uncertainty for victims and their families. It is not sure that the perpetrator will pay the restitution even though the victim has agreed. If the perpetrator breaks his promise, neither the victim nor the investigator can execute the restitution payment unless a civil lawsuit is filed. Perpetrators cannot be criminally prosecuted because the agreement is not the realm of criminal law. The solution to the settlement of compensation for the ABH/AKH case by diversion, which has been determined by the district court but not paid for by the perpetrator/his family, is to summon the perpetrator/his family by the investigator to make an agreement again on the promise that was broken, monitored and made protection in the agreement, will continue the criminal case if the perpetrator/his family did not pay compensation. There is a need for a Government Rules on implementing diversionary compensation and/or a Chief of Indonesia National Police Rules regarding the implementation of diversion restitution or at least the standard operation procedure (SOP) for the investigator's. Investigators as facilitators must be active in determining the contents of the agreement except in determining the clause of the agreement on the amount of compensation for UUSPPA to regulate juridical guarantees in the form of sanctions for perpetrators / their families who do not keep their promises to pay compensation to victims / their families. For the Medan Police to make a standard operational procedure (SOP) for investigators regarding the procedure for collecting the perpetrator's promise to the victim to pay restitution, including the standard for requests for diversion restitution, unpaid restitution, and legal consequences if the perpetrator breaks his promise.