<![CDATA[Nur Alfi Lailati, Faizin Sulistio, Fines Fatimah. Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Jl. MT Haryono No.169 Malang e-mail: alpi_alkariim@student.ub.ac.id ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan mengkaji pertimbangan hakim dalam memberikan putusan berupa pembebanan pembayaran restitusi pada negara yang diwakili oleh Kementerian Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak pada putusan Nomor 989/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bdg yangmana dalam hukum positif Indonesia restitusi sepatutnya dibayarkan oleh pelaku tindak pidana atau pihak ketiga yakni sesuai dengan pasal 1 butir 7 Undang–Undang nomor 31 tahun 2014 sedangkan ganti kerugian yang dibebankan kepada negara disebut kompensasi, berdasarkan pasal 7 Undang–Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 2014 kompensasi diberikan kepada korban pelanggaran hak asasi manusia berat dan korban tindak pidana terorisme. Dimana apabila kita cermati hal tersebut tidak sesuai dengan hukum positif yang ada. Maka untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut penulis menggunakan metode penelitan yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan Case Approach serta Statue Approach. Analsis bahan iukum yang digunakan yakni bahan hukum primer berupa peraturan perundang – undangan yang mengatur mengenai restitusi serta putusan pengadilan terkait, sedangkan bahan hukum yang digunakan berupa literatur, jurnal hukum serta makalah yang berkaitan. Teknik penelusuran bahan hukum yang digunakan penulis yakni studi kepustakaan dan studi internet. Teknik analisis dengan deskriptif menggunakan penalaran deduktif penulis mengkaji peraturan - peraturan serta teori berkaitan dengan restitusi dikaji secara mendalam hingga diperoleh kesimpulan akhir. Berdasarkan hasil penelitan ini maka dapat diketahui bahwa di Indonesia mengenai restitusi belum diatur secara spesifik mengenai kedudukan serta kejelasan pihak ketiga dalam restitusi sehingga menimbulkan kontradiktif terhadap pelaksanaan penegakan hukum. Kata Kunci: Restitusi, Putusan Majelis Hakim, Anak Korban Kejahatan Seksual. ABSTRACT This research delves into Court Decision Number 989/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bdg that charged the state with the restitution through the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection, while the common norm is that the restitution is paid by the criminal concerned or the third party according to Article 1 point 7 of Law Number 31 of 2014. On the contrary, the amount of money charged to the state is often defined as compensation that is given to the victim in the case of serious violations of human rights and terrorism. This is not relevant to the positive law in Indonesia. Normative-juridical methods and case and statutory approaches were used to analyze primary data including the legislation governing restitution and related court decisions. The materials were also taken from literature, law journals, and relevant papers. The legal materials were also taken from library research and sources from the Internet. The data were further analyzed using descriptive and deductive analyses that were intended to study the regulations and the theories regarding restitution. An in-depth investigation of this matter was carried out to reach a conclusion. The research results reveal that restitution in Indonesia has not been specifically governed in terms of the position and the clarity of the third parties in the restitution, and this matter triggers the contradiction of law enforcement. Keywords: restitution, decision of the panel of judges, child as a victim in sexual violence]]>
