Deny Indra Setiawan, Bambang sugiri, Ardi Ferdian Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya e-mail: indradeny080299@gmail.com  ABSTRAK Pewajiban vaksinasi dengan ancaman sanksi pidana yang diterapkan bagi warga yang melanggar (menolak vaksin), baik berupa sanksi denda hingga penjara atau bahkan keduanya sekaligus, yang mengacu pada pasal 93 Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2018 tentang Kekarantinaan Kesehatan menjadi keputusan yang kontroversial. Karena terlepas dari baiknya pemberian vaksinasi pada masyarakat, namun dari segi hukum khususnya pada ranah pidana, penjatuhan pidana tidak bisa dilakukan dengan memaksakan menginterprestasikan suatu pasal begitu saja tanpa dasar yang jelas. Karena dalam menganalisis suatu pasal juga harus di dasarkan pada nilai, norma dan dasar hukum lainnya sehingga tidak saling tumpang tindih berkaitan dengan penegakannya.  jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah Yuridis Normatif, metode pendekatan Undang-Undang (Statue Approach), teknik analisis bahan hukum menggunakan analisis interprestasi sistematis dan interpretasi gramatikal kemudian disajikan secara diskriptif. hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa (1) penolakan program vaksinasi pada dasarnya telah memenuhi rumusan unsur pasal 93 Undang-Undang Kekarantinaan Kesehatan. Namun dalam hal pemidanaan terdapat alasan-alasan yang menunjukan bahwa tidak terdapat unsur kesalahan untuk mereka yang menolak vaksinasi. (2) dalam Pemidanaan dengan dasar pasal 93 Undang-Undang Kekarantinaan Kesehatan masih ada hak-hak dalam pelayanan kesehatan  yang tidak dapat dikesampingkan dalam pelaksanaannya dan seharusnya dapat menjadi perlindungan hukum bagi mereka yang menolak vaksinasi.Kata kunci: Pemidanaan, Vaksinasi, Unsur Tindak Pidana, Perlindungan Hukum ABSTRACT Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 followed by fines or even imprisonment imposed on those rejecting to be vaccinated refer to Article 93 of Law Number 6 of 2018 concerning Health Quarantine, and this issue has been controversial. Apart from the fact of positive sides of the program, this vaccination cannot just be made mandatory without an understanding of the profound principle behind this mandate. The analysis of an article of law should refer to values, norms, and legal principles for appropriate law enforcement. Departing from this issue, this research investigates: (1) does the sentencing over the rejection of vaccination against COVID-19 according to Article 93 of Law Number 6 of 2018 concerning Health Quarantine fulfil the criteria of criminal offences? (2) is there any legal protection for those rejecting the vaccination? This research employed a normative-juridical method and statutory approach requiring primary, secondary, and tertiary data. All the data were analysed based on systematic and grammatical interpretation before they were presented descriptively. The research analysis indicates that (1) rejecting to get vaccinated has met the criteria outlined in Article 93 of Law concerning Health Quarantine. However, sentencing following the provision of this article cannot be fully justified since a person has to be guilty or proven to commit wrongdoings to be sentenced. This principle is equal to the phrase ‘no crime without the presence of guilt’. That is, this research shows there are no criteria of guilt in rejecting the jab. (2) in terms of sentencing according to Article 93 of Law concerning Health Quarantine, several rights remain and should not be overlooked since they serve as the basis of legal protection for those rejecting vaccination. Keywords: Criminalization, Vaccination, Elements of Crime, legal protectionÂ
Copyrights © 2021