ANALISIS KESALAHAN PENERAPAN HUKUM JUDEX FACTI SEBAGAI DASAR PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM AGUNG MEMERIKSA BERAT RINGAN PIDANA TERDAKWA (Studi Putusan Kasasi Nomor 245K/Pid.Sus/2019) - Kevin Arnot (Kumpulan Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum, 2021)
Kevin Arnot, Nurini Aprilianda, Ardi Ferdian Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya Jl. MT. Haryono No. 169 Malang e-mail: kenotsbrn@gmail.com  ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah letak kesalahan penerapan hukum sebagai dasar pertimbangan hakim agung dalam memeriksa berat ringan pidana sebagai objek pemeriksaan kasasi sesuai dengan ketentuan pasal 253 ayat (1) KUHAP. latar belakang dari permiihan tema tersebut adalah berat ringan pidana bukan kewenangan kasasi, akan tetapi apabila terdapat kesalahan penerapan hukum pada putusan tingkat judex facti maka hakim agung dapat memeriksa berat ringan pidana terdakwa. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, maka pada penelitian ini peneliti mengangkat rumusan masalah yaitu apakah kesalahan penerapan hukum yang dilakukan oleh judex facti yang menjadi dasar pertimbangan hakim agung dalam memeriksa berat ringan pidana sebagai terdakwa dan apakah akibat hukum hakim agung memeriksa berat ringan pidana sebagai objek pemeriksaan kasasi. Penulisan skripsi ini menggunakan metode  yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan kasus. Bahan hukum primer, sekunder, tersier dengan teknik analisis bahan hukum yaitu interpretasi sistematis dan interpretasi gramatikal. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa letak kesalahan penerapan hukum yang menjadi dasar pertimbangan hakim agung memeriksa berat ringan pidana terletak pada putusan judex facti yang belum objektif dan adil dalam mempertimbangkan keadaan memberatkan dan meringankan sebagaimana diatur dalam ketentuan pasal 197 ayat (1) huruf f KUHAP. Bahwa disparitas pemidanaan yang dipengaruhi oleh banyak sedikitnya barang bukti yang menjadi dasar pertimbangan hakim agung menyatakan Judex Facti belum objektif dan adil mempertimbangkan keadaan meringankan terdakwa, namun disparitas pemidanaan secara yuridis formal tidak melanggar hukum. Oleh karena itu pertimbangan hakim agung tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan pasal 253 ayat (1) huruf a KUHAP yang berkenaan dengan kesalahan penerapan hukum. Atas hal tersebut putusan kasasi nomor 245K/Pid.Sus/2019 tidak dapat dibenarkan menurut hukum dan Akibat hukum hakim agung memeriksa berat ringan pidana sebagai objek pemeriksaan kasasi adalah eksaminasi putusan Kata Kunci: Berat Ringan Pidana, Hakim Agung, Kesalahan Penerapan Hukum ABSTRACTThis research aims to find out whether the errors in the implementation of law serving as the judge’s basic consideration to measure the level of punishment as part of the review at the court of third instance is relevant to Article 253 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code Procedure. In this case, the Supreme Court judge investigating the level of the sentence imposed on the defendant at the third instance court is contrary to the theory suggesting that the seriousness of sentencing is not within the authority of the third instance court. Unless there are errors in the enforcement of law in the Decision delivered by judex facti, the Supreme Court Judge has the authority to review the seriousness of the sentencing. With this issue, this research aims to investigate what errors in the implementation of the law by judex facti serve as the basis of the judge’s consideration in reviewing the sentencing imposed on the defendant and what legal consequences could arise if the Supreme Court Judge reviews the seriousness of sentencing at the court of third instance? With a normative juridical method, statutory and case approaches, this research took primary, secondary, and tertiary data which were further analysed based on a legal material-based analysis, grammatical and systematic interpretation. The research result shows that the level of criminal sentencing based on the judex facti decision has not been implemented objectively and justly, as referred to Article 197 paragraph (1) letter f of Criminal Code Procedure. The disparity in sentencing affected by the amount of evidence that serves as the principle for the Supreme Court Judge to consider seems to be the contributing factor to this unjust and subjective judex facti in terms of alleviating the sentence imposed on the defendant. However, the disparity caused by the judge cannot be taken as an error in the implementation of the law because any decision that sparks formal juridical disparity does not violate the law. Thus, the Supreme Court Judge’s, in this case, is not in line with the provision of Article 253 paragraph (1) letter a of Criminal Code Procedure regarding errors in the enforcement of the law. That is, the decision of the third instance of court Number 245K/Pid.Sus/2019 is not lawfully relevant and, in this case, the judge of the Supreme Court should not have reviewed the level of the sentence imposed since there have not been any errors made by judex facti. In terms of the review of the seriousness of sentencing, the decision can be examined for the sake of better performance of the judge in the future, but this decision examination does not change the decision of the judge. Keywords: level of sentencing, Supreme Court Judge, errors in implementation of law