Analisis Yuridis Pengesampingan Pasal 109 UU Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Bagi Badan Usaha dalam Putusan Nomor 110 PK/PID.SUS-LH/2018

Abstract

The environmental permit offense in Article 109 of Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management (UUPPLH) stipulates that anyone who carries out a business and/or activity without having an environmental permit as referred to in Article 36 paragraph (1) will be punished. There is a controversial aspect to the Supreme Court Decision Number 110 PK/Pid.sus-LH/2018 which justifies the Balige District Court Decision Number 28/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Blg dated 19 August 2015. The decision stipulates that the defendant Jonni Sihotang is proven to be legally and convincingly commit a criminal act as charged by the public prosecutor, namely Article 98 paragraph (1) jo. Article 36 paragraph (1) of Law Number 32 of 2009. In this case, the indictment of the public prosecutor is considered inaccurate because it makes alternative, not cumulative indictments against two criminal acts, each of which stands alone, with the exception of Article 109 of Law Number 32 of 2009 ( UUPPLH). The problems that will be discussed in this research, how is the effectiveness of the application of Article 109 UUPPLH, why the indictment of Article 109 of Law Number 32 of 2009 is ruled out in decision Number 110 PK/Pid.Sus-LH/2018, and how is the judge's consideration in decision Number 110 PK/Pid .Sus-LH/2018. This legal writing uses normative-empirical legal research using secondary data, namely primary legal materials in the form of Law Number 32 of 2009, Government Regulation Number 27 of 2012 concerning Environmental Permits, secondary legal materials in the form of books, and tertiary legal materials in the form of general dictionary, legal dictionary and using primary data in the form of direct interviews. The results of the research show that the application of Article 109 of the UUPPLH has not been effective due to the waiver of Article 109 of the UUPPLH due to a conflict between the guidelines for imposing administrative sanctions in the form of a written warning in SK MENLHK SE.7/2016 and SK MENLHK S.541/2016 and SK MENLHK S.5446/ MENLHK-PKTL/2015 and SK No. B-14134/MENLHK KP/12/2013 with the provisions in article 109 which regulates the application of criminal sanctions. * Chairperson of Supervising Comittee ** The Second Supervisor *** The Third Supervisor **** Student of Jurisprudence Graduate Program, University of Sumatera Utara