ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN MK NO 33/PUUXIV/2016 DAN PUTUSAN MK NO 20 PUUXXI/2023 TERHADAP KEWENANGAN PENGAJUAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI DALAM PRESPEKTIF KUHAP DENGAN UU KEJAKSAAN

Abstrak

Four discoveries of seagliders or UUVs in Indonesian waters indicateviolations of territorial sovereignty by other countries. Due to the lack ofsupervision from related parties, neighboring countries are still free to violatesovereignty. In Indonesia, the main legal problem currently is the absence ofregulations governing cases of Seaglider/UUV discoveries. This bachelor’s thesisdiscusses the regulation of international maritime law regarding the discovery ofUUV/Seagliders in Indonesian waters; and How Indonesian law compares withother countries in regulating UUVs or Seagliders. This thesis uses a normative legalresearch method with a statute approach and a comparative approach. Thematerials that used are combination of three types of legal materials, the primarylegal materials containing statutory regulations, secondary legal materials are inthe form of library sources including books and journals, and tertiary legal materialsare dictionaries. Thus, it can be concluded that the constitution regulates theIndonesian archipelago. This implicitly explains how the region consists of manyislands separated by sea waters. In addition, regulations specifically regulatingUUVs have not yet been found in Indonesian positive law so that legal certaintyhas not been fulfilled. Based on Satjipto Rahardjo's comparative theory, acomparison between the Indonesian Maritime Law, the US Commander'sHandbook 2022, and MASS UK found similarities such as UNCLOS that acts as asource of law and the existence of its legal structure. In terms of differences, UUVoperational licensing and position in the US Commander's Handbook 2022, andMASS UK. However, from Indonesia it cannot be measured from both points ofdifference bePenelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis Putusan MK No 33/PUUXIV/2016 dan Putusan MK No 20/PUU-XXI/2023 dalam kaitannya dengan konfliknorma antara Pasal 263 ayat (1) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana danPasal 30C huruf h Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2021 terkait kewenanganpengajuan peninjauan kembali. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitiannormatif dengan pendekatan Perundang-Undangan, pendekatan konseptual danpendekatan perbandingan. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa Putusan MK No33/PUU-XIV/2016 menguji Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP, menegaskan kembali bahwanorma Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP adalah norma konstitusional sepanjang tidakdimaknai lain selain bahwa peninjauan kembali hanya dapat diajukan olehterpidana atau ahli warisnya. Sedangkan Putusan MK No 20/PUU-XXI/2023menyatakan bahwa Pasal 30C huruf h sebagai Inkonstitusional, alasanInkonstitusional yaitu bertentangan dengan UUD 1945, tidak sejalan denganputusan MK sebelumnya, dan potensi penyalahgunaan wewenangan. kepastianhukum kewenangan pengajuan Peninjauan Kembali dalam UU Kejaksaanxiiberdasarkan Putusan MK No. 20/PUU-XXI/2023 tidak memenuhi kepastian hukum.Hal ini karena tidak memenuhi kepastian hukum sebagai syarat-syarat yangberkaitan dengan struktur internal norma hukum yang menghendaki kejelasankonsep, kejelasan hierarki lembaga pembentukan Peraturan PerundangUndangan, dan konsistensi norma dalam peraturan perundang-undangancause there is still a gap in norms related to UUV

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the Constitutional Court Decision Number33/PUU-XIV/2016 and Decision Number 20/PUU-XXI/2023 in relation to the conflictof norms between Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code andArticle 30C letter h of Law Number 11 of 2021 regarding the authority to submit areview. This study uses normative research methods with a Legislation-Legislationapproach, a conceptual approach and a comparative approach. The results of thestudy found that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/2016examines Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, reaffirming that the normof Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code is a constitutional norm as longas it is not interpreted otherwise than that review can only be submitted by theconvict or his heirs. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUUXXI/2023 states that Article 30C letter h is unconstitutional, the reason isunconstitutional, namely it is contrary to the 1945 Constitution, is not in line withthe previous Constitutional Court decision, and has the potential for abuse ofauthority. legal certainty of the authority to submit a Review in the Prosecutor'sLaw based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 20/PUU-XXI/2023 does notmeet legal certainty. This is because it does not meet legal certainty as conditionsrelated to the internal structure of legal norms that require clarity of concepts,clarity of the hierarchy of institutions for the formation of laws and regulations,and consistency of norms in laws and regulations