Kebebasaan Hakim Memutuskan Tindak Pidana Narkotika Untuk Kesehatan Di Tinjau Dari Keadilan Subtantif (Putusan Nomor 111/Pid.Sus/2017/PN Sag)

Narcotics are needed by humans for treatment so that to meet the needs in the field of medicine and scientific studies, a continuous production of narcotics is needed. Based on Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, it is stated that narcotics on the one hand are drugs or substances that are useful in the field of medicine or health services and scientific development. The case that happened to Fidelis in which he tried to treat his wife who was suffering from the rare disease Syringomyelia after trying various medications and therapies that she felt was inadequate, after using marijuana extract, her wife's condition began to change and was gradually healthy, but it was very regrettable. deemed to have violated the law and arrested by BNN, after 32 days of detention his wife died, because she was unable to treat fidelis. 8 months in prison and a fine of 1 billion rupiah, a subsidiary imprisonment of 1 month for him. Based on this background, the author raises the main problem 1. How is the freedom of judges to decide on Narcotics Crime for health in terms of substantive justice (decision Number 111 / Pid.Sus / 2017 / PN Sag)? 2. Why is the judge in deciding cases of narcotics crime in decision Number 111 / Pid.Sus / 2017 / PN Sag of 2017 not linked to Law Number 36 of 2009 concerning Health? And this research uses the normative juridical method, namely by analyzing problems through the approach of legal principles and referring to the legal norms contained in statutory regulations, while seen from its nature it is an analytical description, the data needed in this study are data. secondary, namely data obtained from library materials and The freedom of judges to decide the Narcotics Crime for Health in a review of substantive justice (decision Number 111 / Pid.Sus // 2017 / PN Sag), that to present substantive justice in criminal law not only looks at the nature of against formal law, but also the nature of being against the law In addition to contradicting the law and also contradicting the sense of justice that lives in society, two elements (against formal and material laws) must be fulfilled first, then it can be said that the investment is against the law, In nature against material law in a negative sense , then an act is against the formal law or is included in offense, but according to society, the act does not contradict the values that live in society. Judges in deciding cases of narcotics crimes in decision Number 111 / Pid.Sus / 2017 / PN Sag of 2017 are not linked to Law Number 36 of 2009 concerning Health Lack of scientific research and other disciplinary sciences, which make science and information related to narcotics specifically, marijuana is very limited, and in Court Decision Number 111 / Pid.Sus / PN Sag, there is a conflict between justice and legal certainty, in terms of legal certainty, the application of criminal sanctions imposed by judges is not in accordance with the specific minimum penalties regulated in the formulation of Article 116 paragraph (1). In terms of justice, the use of Narcotics Category I in this case marijuana in this case is not done for the benefit of the defendant, nor for distribution but for the treatment of his wife (humanitarian interests)