Rizki Setyobowo Sangalang
University of Palangka Raya, Indonesia

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Judicial Disparities in Premeditated Murder Cases: Legal Certainty in the Interpretation of Articles 338 and 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code Tanto Satryatama; Andika Wijaya; Satriya Nugraha; Rizki Setyobowo Sangalang
Journal Evidence Of Law Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): Journal Evidence Of Law (Agustus)
Publisher : CV. Era Digital Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59066/jel.v5i2.2425

Abstract

Judicial disparities in homicide cases involving indications of premeditation continue to challenge legal certainty in Indonesia's criminal justice system. Previous studies have primarily examined sentencing disparity or the interpretation of Article 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) in individual cases, but have not systematically explained the relationship between legal certainty, judicial discretion, and judicial reasoning through comparative analysis of judicial decisions. This study addresses that gap by analysing inconsistencies in the interpretation of the element "with prior planning" (dengan rencana terlebih dahulu) through a normative juridical method employing statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. The analysis focuses on Decision Number 230/Pid.B/2023/PN Sda and compares it with four homicide decisions rendered between 2021 and 2024 involving comparable factual circumstances. The findings reveal five principal factors contributing to judicial disparity: (1) the absence of objective parameters for interpreting Article 340 of the KUHP; (2) broad judicial subjectivity in assessing the offender's psychological condition; (3) the lack of interpretative guidelines issued by the Supreme Court; (4) inconsistency in judicial precedent concerning comparable cases; and (5) divergent interpretations regarding the interval between the formation of intent and the execution of the offence. These factors result in inconsistent legal qualifications and sentencing outcomes despite materially similar facts. The study's theoretical contribution lies in integrating the perspectives of legal certainty, judicial discretion, ratio decidendi, and sentencing disparity into a unified analytical framework for evaluating judicial interpretation of premeditation. Its practical contribution is the formulation of four cumulative objective indicators—weapon preparation, victim surveillance, preparation for escape or concealment, and sufficient time for rational reflection—as interpretative guidelines to support consistent application of Article 340. Accordingly, the study recommends the adoption of these indicators through a Supreme Court Regulation (Peraturan Mahkamah Agung—PERMA) to strengthen legal certainty while preserving judicial independence in homicide adjudication.
Reformulation of the Regulation of the Criminal Offence of Refusing to Testify as a Witness in the Reform of Indonesian Criminal Law Stephen Hank Mengket; Andika Wijaya; Rizki Setyobowo Sangalang; Satriya Nugraha
Journal Evidence Of Law Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): Journal Evidence Of Law (Agustus)
Publisher : CV. Era Digital Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59066/jel.v5i2.2433

Abstract

This study examines the reformulation of the criminal offence of refusing to testify under Indonesian criminal law and proposes a rights-based graduated liability model that reserves criminal punishment for deliberate and persistent refusal after procedural safeguards, witness protection, and less restrictive measures have proven ineffective. Employing normative juridical research with statutory and conceptual approaches, the study analyzes the National Criminal Code, criminal procedural law, relevant criminal law doctrines, and the legal framework governing witness rights and obligations through descriptive and prescriptive methods. The findings reveal that the existing regulation risks overcriminalization because it does not sufficiently distinguish between culpable refusal to comply with a lawful obligation, the lawful exercise of the privilege to refuse testimony (hak ingkar) or the privilege against self-incrimination, and excusable non-compliance arising from compelling force, serious threats, or objectively unavoidable circumstances. Although the criminalization of unjustified refusal possesses philosophical, sociological, and juridical legitimacy in protecting the administration of justice, its application must remain subject to the principles of legality, culpability, proportionality, subsidiarity, and human rights protection. As an ius constituendum, this study proposes a graduated regulatory framework consisting of procedural clarification and renewed summons, protection intervention where threats or vulnerability exist, proportionate non-penal compliance measures, and criminal sanctions only as an ultimum remedium. The theoretical novelty of this study lies in reconceptualizing refusal to testify through a rights-based criminalization framework that integrates the witness’s legal obligation to participate in judicial proceedings with the state’s reciprocal obligation to guarantee procedural rights and effective protection. This reformulation provides clearer normative boundaries for distinguishing punishable refusal from legally protected or excusable non-compliance, thereby strengthening legal certainty while preventing the overcriminalization of vulnerable witnesses.