Inkonsistensi Penerapan Sanksi Pidana terhadap Pasal 107 dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 2014 tentang Perkebunan

Abstract

Though the country's economy benefits from the growing demand for and usage of agricultural land, there are drawbacks for those who lack access to these resources, particularly when it comes to planting businesses. There are certain inconsistencies with other sector laws and the 1945 UUD RI regarding the prohibitions and penalties for violators of abusing plantation land, as stated in Article 107 of Law No. 39 of 2014, depending on the interpretation of the law from both a horizontal and vertical perspective. Regarding the grounds put forth, among others: 1) Why Article 107 of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Agriculture in Indonesia does not consistently apply criminal punishments against the misuse of agricultural land? 2) How the Act No. 39, 2014 on Agriculture addresses the criminal liability for the offense of misuse committed by individuals or companies on agricultural land. 3) The way that the idea of criminal law in opposition to Article 107, which satisfies the standards of justice in the legal system, addresses the illegal use of farmland in the law No. 39 of 2014 on agriculture. In order to address issues, this study methodology employs normative approaches and qualitative investigation techniques. This study makes use of secondary data sources, primary, secondary, and tertiary legal resources. The methods of the statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case approach will all be applied in this study. Following a thorough examination of the legal sources and general principles, particular conclusions are reached based on the problem formulation: 1. The Law No. 39 of 2014 on Farming in Indonesia contains inconsistent application of criminal penalties against Article 107 on the illicit use of planted land. This is because Article 107 does not safeguard small farmers and local communities on the plantation, which results in the loss of public rights on land planted in subordinate possession. This is because the capital owners have unrestricted custody of the plantation's land, which leads to legal injustices against specific legal subjects who are involved in plantation companies. Findings from the study Truth versus Facts: (a) Reorienting law enforcement to target administrative infractions in the forestry sector based on the Law of Creation of Work's post-conditional legalization. (b) Variations in how the Law No. 39 of 2014 on Farming and the Act No. 11 of 2020 on Work Creation are interpreted in relation to the development of legal standards pertaining to the unauthorized use of agricultural land. (c) Community farmers and corporate farmers are subject to different laws and regulations on penalties and regulations. 2. Under Law No. 39 of 2014 on Farming, criminal liability for criminal acts of improper exploitation of plantation land by individuals or businesses According to study findings and court rulings regarding the conflict of plantations for the illegal use of farmed land under Article 107 of Act No. 39 of 2014 about farming, there are differences in how the law is enforced, primarily with regard to criminal liability. Administrative law governs the implementation of corporate legal accountability for criminal offenses under Article 107 of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Agriculture, while criminal responsibility under Art. To ensure that criminal liability for land use is inconsistent or inconsistency, criminal liability in the science of criminal law must satisfy the subjective and objective factors. 3. In order to address the illegal use of plantation land in the Act No. 39 of 2014 on plantations, the concept of criminal law against section 107 that upholds the values of legal justice is used. Article 107 of the Law No. 39 of 2014 concerning Farming threatens criminal sanctions, but its application is not as specified in Article 107 of the Act No. 39 from 2014 on Farming. The Law No. 39 of 2014 on Farming's provisions and purposes on the criminal law deal with land usage that upholds the principles of legal justice; thus, the application of the law to criminal crimes and perpetrators is the same. The Constitutional Court's decision in Decision No. 20/Law-XXI/2023, which upheld the norm's unconstitutionality when it came to creating legal uncertainty and injustice in violation of Article 28D Paragraph (1) UUD 1945, served as further confirmation of this, in order to confirm that a different application of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Farming's Article 107 norms could possibly result in abuses in law enforcement, and that because of the Labour Creation Act, such a standard can be declared void by law.