by: Rizky Primadi
English version
Concurring opinion according to the Wax Definition Team is:
“A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Instead of joining the majority, the concurring judge will write a separate opinion describing the basis behind their decision.” If interpreted in Indonesian, it means an opinion from the judge who agrees with the decision but has different reasons (Legal Reasoning) for imposing the decision.
Regarding this concurring opinion, we can see the arrangements in Article 14 of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power ("Judicial Power Law"), namely:
Decisions are made based on a confidential deliberative session of judges.
In a deliberative session, each judge must submit written considerations or opinions on the examined case, forming an integral part of the decision.
If a unanimous consensus cannot be reached in a deliberative session, the different opinions of the judges must be included in the decision.
Further provisions regarding the deliberative session as referred to in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), are regulated in a Supreme Court Regulation.
In point 3, it is explained that whenever there is a different opinion from members of the Panel of Judges, it must be included in the decision. Thus, the conclusion is that the concurring opinion must be included in the decision and is active in all procedural laws in Indonesia.
For example, we will discuss the Court Decision of the Blajengkeren District Court Number 41/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Bkj. In this decision, the defendant was found guilty of selling, buying and receiving narcotics Category I, carried out without rights and against the law following Article 114 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 2009 concerning Narcotics. The accused was sentenced to 10 years in prison. One panel of judges members, namely Judge Ahmad Ishak Kurniawan, S.H., agree with the punishment given in terms of amount and type. However, he has a different opinion regarding the article applied to the decision. This was due to the fact that the trial revealed that the defendant purchased 1 pack of white crystals containing Methamphetamine weighing 5.42 grams. According to Judge Ahmad Ishak Kurniawan, S.H., this action should have violated the provisions of Article 114 paragraph (2) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. The consideration above is an example of a concurring opinion, in which the judge agrees with the application of his sentence but has different views regarding the legal reasons that form the basis of his decision.
Indonesia version
Concurring opinion menurut Wex Definition Team adalah:
“A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Instead of joining the majority, the concurring judge will write a separate opinion describing the basis behind their decision.”
Yang jika ditafsirkan ke dalam Bahasa Indonesia berarti suatu pendapat dari hakim yang setuju dengan putusan, namun memiliki perbedaan alasan (Legal Reasoning) dalam penjatuhan putusannya.
Mengenai concurring opinion ini, pengaturannya dapat kita lihat dalam Pasal 14 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman (“UU Kekuasaan Kehakiman”) yaitu:
Putusan diambil berdasarkan sidang permusyawaratan hakim yang bersifat rahasia.
Dalam sidang permusyawaratan, setiap hakim wajib menyampaikan pertimbangan atau pendapat tertulis terhadap perkara yang sedang diperiksa dan menjadi bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari putusan.
Dalam hal sidang permusyawaratan tidak dapat dicapai mufakat bulat, pendapat hakim yang berbeda wajib dimuat dalam putusan.
Ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai sidang permusyawaratan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) dan ayat (3) diatur dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung.
Pada poin ke 3 dijelaskan bahwa setiap terjadi pendapat yang berbeda dari anggotaMajelis Hakim, maka haruslah dimuat dalam putusan. Jadi kesimpulannya ialah concurring opinion itu wajib dimuat dalam putusan dan berlaku aktif di seluruh hukum acara di Indonesia.
Sebagai contoh, kita akan membahas Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Blajengkeren Nomor 41/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Bkj. Dalam putusan tersebut, terdakwa dinyatakan bersalah karena penjualan, pembelian, dan penerimaan narkotika Golongan I yang dilakukan secara tanpa hak dan melawan hukum sesuai dengan Pasal 114 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika. Terdakwa dijatuhi hukuman penjara selama 10 tahun. Salah satu anggota majelis hakim, yaitu Hakim Ahmad Ishak Kurniawan, S.H. menyetujui hukuman yang diberikan baik dalam hal jumlah maupun jenisnya. Namun, ia memiliki pendapat berbeda terkait pasal yang diterapkan dalam putusan tersebut. Hal ini disebabkan oleh fakta persidangan yang mengungkapkan bahwa terdakwa membeli 1 bungkus kristal warna putih berisi Metamfetamina dengan berat 5,42 gram. Menurut Hakim Ahmad Ishak Kurniawan, S.H., tindakan ini seharusnya melanggar ketentuan Pasal 114 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika.
Pertimbangan diatas merupakan contoh concurring opinion, dimana hakim setuju dengan penerapan pemidanaannya tetapi memiliki perbedaan pandangan mengenai alasan hukum yang menjadi dasar keputusannya.
Referensi
Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana
Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Blajengkeren Nomor 41/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Bkj.