Heri Qomarudin
Unknown Affiliation

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

Karena Pembelaan Paksa Sehingga Pelaku Tindak Pidana Tidak Dipidana Irvandi Saputra; Heri Qomarudin
Jurnal Kewarganegaraan Vol 6 No 3 (2022): October 2022
Publisher : UNIVERSITAS PGRI YOGYAKARTA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (249.75 KB) | DOI: 10.31316/jk.v6i3.4142

Abstract

Abstrak Pasal 49 ayat (1) KUHP menyebutkan: “Barangsiapa terpaksa melakukan perbuatan untuk pembelaan, karena ada serangan atau ancaman serangan ketika itu yang melawan hukum, terhadap diri sendiri maupun orang lain; terhadap kehormatan kesusilaan (eerbaarheid) atau harta benda sendiri maupun orang lain, tidak dipidana”. Berdasarkan pasal tersebut, jika seseorang menerima ancaman serangan, serangan atau tindakan kejahatan yang melanggar hukum dari orang lain, maka pada dasarnya orang dapat dibenarkan untuk melakukan suatu pembelaan terhadap tindakan tersebut. Hal tersebut dibenarkan walaupun dilakukan dengan cara yang merugikan kepentingan hukum dari penyerangnya, yang di dalam keadaan biasa cara tersebut merupakan suatu tindakan yang terlarang dimana pelakunya telah diancam dengan sesuatu hukuman. Beberapa pendapat yang menjelaskan mengenai alasan pembelaan diri seseorang yang merasa terancam akan ancaman serangan atau serangan tidak dapat dihukum dan dijadikan alasan pembenar. Salah satu pendapat yang paling terkenal dikemukakan oleh van Hamel, seorang ahli hukum pidana. Menurut Van Hamel, membela diri merupakan suatu hak, sehingga orang yang menggunakan hak tersebut tidak dapat dihukum. Dan atas perbuatan tersebut dapat dilakukan diskresi dengan tidak diproses hukum. Kata Kunci: Pembelaan Paksa, Tidak Dipidana, Diskresi Abstract Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code states: “Whoever is forced to act in defense, because there is an attack or threat of attack at that time which is against the law, against himself or others; against the honor of decency (eerbaarheid) or own property or that of others, shall not be punished". Based on the article, if someone receives a threat of attack, attack or unlawful crime from another person, then basically that person can be justified to make a defense against that action. This is justified even though it is carried out in a way that is detrimental to the legal interests of the attacker, which in ordinary circumstances is a prohibited act where the perpetrator has been threatened with a punishment. Some opinions that explain the reasons for the self-defense of someone who feels threatened by the threat of attack or attack cannot be punished and used as justification. One of the most famous opinions was put forward by van Hamel, a criminal law expert. According to Van Hamel, self- defense is a right, so people who exercise this right cannot be punished. And for these actions, discretion can be done without being processed by law. Keywords: Forced Defense, Not Convicted, Discretion
Peranan Fiat Ekseksi Pengadilan dalam Upaya Eksekusi Hak Tanggungan Berdasarkan Tinjauan Teoritis dan Praktis Yudhi Putra Eka Yuri; Heri Qomarudin
J-CEKI : Jurnal Cendekia Ilmiah Vol. 3 No. 6: Oktober 2024
Publisher : CV. ULIL ALBAB CORP

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56799/jceki.v3i6.5971

Abstract

There is a gap between the provisions in the law and the practices that occur in the field regarding how banks as holders of mortgage rights cannot immediately make efforts to execute mortgage rights in accordance with Article 6 of Law No. 4 of 1996 in accordance with the privileges of collateral imposed by mortgage rights. The formulation of the problem in this study is how the legal consequences of the binding of mortgage rights born from debt and credit agreements between banks as creditors and debtors? And what is the role of execution fiat or court order in providing legal certainty and expediency for efforts to execute mortgage rights by banks as creditors for defaulting debtors when parate execution efforts experience obstacles in its implementation? The type of research used in this research is normative juridical and also a case approach. The results of the research If the debtor is in default, then based on the rights of the first mortgage holder, the object of the mortgage will be sold based on Article 6 of the UUHT, or the executorial title contained in the mortgage certificate, the object of the mortgage is sold through a public auction according to the procedures specified in the laws and regulations for the repayment of the receivables of the mortgage holder with the right to precede other creditors. Any promise to carry out the execution of a mortgage right in a manner that is contrary to the provisions of the law.