Analisis Yuridis Pembatalan Putusan Khusus Tindak Pidana Narkotika (Studi Putusan No.09/Pid.Sus/2016/PN-Kis, Jo Putusan No.186/Pid.SUS/2016/PT-PDN, Jo Putusan No 1573K/Pid.Sus/2016)

Abstract

Pembatalan Putusan merupakan putusan sejak awal dijatuhkan dianggap tidak pernah ada, putusan tersebut tidak mempunyai kekuatan dan akibat hukum, juga tidak memiliki daya eksekusi, putusan yang benar-benar batal dari yang intansi lebih tinggi, dalam pembatalan putusan tidak terlepas dari peran hakim, sebab hakim bukan saja merupakan corong undang-undang, akan tetapi hakim sebagai pembuat hukum ( judge medelaw) yaitu putusan, sehinga hakim bebas menjatuhkan putusan, oleh karena itu sangat penting peran hakim sebagai Agent of Change untuk meningkatkan Putusan dalam mewujudkan Law And Legal Pefo. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk Mengetahui Pertimbangan dan Peran Hakim dalam Pembatalan Putusan Khusus Tindak Pidana Narkotika. Penelitian hukum ini mengunakan penelitian studi kepustakaan ( library research ) dan penelitian lapangan ( field research) dalam hal penelitian di Pengadilan Negeri Kisaran dengan mewawancarai Terdakwa Nani Prihartini di ruang tahanan Pengadilan Negeri Kisaran. Adapun perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini yaitu : Bagaimana Pengaturan Hukum Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Narkotika, Bagaimana Pertimbangan Hukum Majelis Hakim Agung Terhadap Pembatalan Putusan Khusus Tindak Pidana Narkotika Dalam Putusan No. 09/Pid.SUS/2016/PN-Kis Jo Putusan No.186 / Pid.Sus /2016/PT-MDN Putusan No.1573 K / Pid.SUS/2016 dan Bagaimana Peran Hakim Agung dalam melakukan Pembatalan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Kisaran No. 9 /Pid.Sus/2016/PN-Kis, Jo Putusan No.186/Pid.Sus/2016/PT-MDN Jo Putusan No.1573 K/Pid.SUS/2016 . Pertimbangan Hukum Hakim Agung Pembatalan Putusan tersebut, Terdakwa tidak bisa dipersalahkan melakukan tindak pidana melanggar Pasal 112 ayat (1) karena barang bukti Narkotika jenis shabu yang di temukan polisi jumlahnya sedikit yaitu 0,10 ( nol koma sepuluh) gram, dengan demikian dapat dinyatakan unsur ini tidak terpenuhi menerut hukum (vide. SEMA Nomor 4 Tahun 2010).---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Decision Cencellaation is a decision or the verdict was dropped since the beginning but never considered, that decision doesn’t have any strength or a permanent legal force, and it does not have any execution of counterparts, the decision is truly cancelled from the higher agency, the judge has a big role in cencelling the decision, because judge is not only as the mouthpiece of the law but also as a lawmaking (judge made law) which is decision, so judge can drop the decision freely, that’s whay it is very important to realize about the judge’s role as thr Agent Of Change to improve the decisionin making law and legal Pefo/ force. This research is aim to know about the consideration and judges role in cencelling special decision narcotics criminal act. This law research is using (library research) and (field research) which was held in kisaran District Court by interviewing a defendant named Nani Prihartini in the detention room of Kisaran District Court. The formulation of the problem in this research is : How deep law regulations to the perpetrator narcotics criminal act, How is law consideration, panel of judges to the special decision cancellation narcotic criminal act in decision number 09 /Pid.Sus / 2016 / PN.Kis Jo decision No. 186/Pid.Sus/2016/PT.MDN decision No. 1573 K /Pid .Sus/2016 and how is the role Of Supreme Court Judge in making decision cancellation in Distriict Court Kisaran No. 09/Pid.Sus/2016/PN.Kis Jo decision No. 186/Pid.Sus/2016/PT.MDN decision No. 1573 K/Pid.Sus/2016. The consideration of cencelling that decision by the Superme Court Judge in the case of Nani Prihartini as a defendant and juridical person, physically and spiritually healthy and also she is able to do law act and to her deed that is why she is worth it to be responsible, defendant Nani Prihartini cannot be blamed in doing criminal act which is breaking the article 112 : 1 because the evidence such as narcotics type : shabu drugs which has found by the police officers the amount is not much namely : 0,10 (Zero point ten ) gram, the refore the element of the case is not fulfilled according to the law (Vide. SEMA No. 4 yers 2010).