<![CDATA[Penelitian ini mendiskripsikan dan mengkaji permasalahan, pertama bagaimana konstruksi pembuktian pada Putusan Nomor 450/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Jkt.Utr pada praktik ilegal dokter asing di Indonesia. Kedua, bagaimana ratio decidendi pada Putusan Nomor 450/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Jkt.Utr pada praktik ilegal dokter asing di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang bersifat preskriptif dan terapan. Penelitian ini menggunakan case approach (pendekatan kasus) dan statute approach (pendekatan perundang[1]undangan) yang berdasar pada bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder dan dihimpun melalui studi kepustakaan yang selanjutnya dianalisis menggunakan metode silogisme deduktif. Hasil penelitian dan pembahasan menunjukkan bahwa pembuktian oleh penuntut umum mampu mengajukan alat bukti yang sah sebagaimana tertuang dalam Pasal 184 KUHAP yakni keterangan saksi, keterangan ahli, keterangan terdakwa disertai barang bukti pendukung guna membuktikan terdakwa bersalah telah melakukan praktik ilegal dokter asing di Indonesia. Ratio decidendi hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan juga memperhatikan dan memenuhi rumusan Pasal 183 KUHAP karena telah mempertimbangkan sekurang-kurangnya 2 (dua) alat bukti yang sah yang telah diajukan oleh penuntut umum. Ketiga alat bukti tersebut menerangkan bahwa pelaku tidak memiliki legalitas praktik dokter sebagaimana dalam UUPK sehingga dapat menimbulkan keyakinan hakim untuk memutus terdakwa bersalah telah melakukan praktik ilegal dokter asing di Indonesia.Kata Kunci: Pembuktian, Ratio Decidendi, Praktik Ilegal DokterThis study describes and examines the problems, firstly how is the construction of evidence in Decision Number 450/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Jkt.Utr on the illegal practice of foreign doctors in Indonesia. Second, what is the ratio decidendi in Decision Number 450/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Jkt.Utr on the illegal practice of foreign doctors in Indonesia. This research is a normative legal research that is prescriptive and applied. This study uses a case approach and a statute approach which are based on primary legal materials and secondary legal materials and are compiled through literature studies which are then analyzed using the deductive syllogism method. The results of the research and discussion show that the evidence by the public prosecutor is able to submit valid evidence as stated in Article 184 of KUHP, namely witness statements, expert statements, defendant statements accompanied by supporting evidence to prove the defendant guilty of illegally practicing foreign doctors in Indonesia. The judge's ratio decidendi in making a decision also pays attention to and fulfills the formulation of Article 183 of KUHP because it has considered at least 2 (two) valid pieces of evidence that have been submitted by the public prosecutor. The three pieces of evidence explained that the perpetrators did not have the legality of practicing doctors as stipulated in the UUPK, so that this could lead to a judge's conviction that the defendant was guilty of carrying out the illegal practice of foreign doctors in Indonesia.Keywords: Evidence, Ratio Decidendi, Doctor’s Illegal Practice]]>
