ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PUTUSAN KASUS TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI (STUDI KASUS: PUTUSAN BANDING NOMOR: 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI)

Ihwanul Hakim, Prija Djatmika, Galieh Damayanti Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Jl. MT. Haryono No. 169 Malang e-mail: hakimikhwan15@students.ub.ac.id   Abstrak Penelitian ini membahas ratio decidendi hakim dalam Putusan Banding Nomor: 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI terkait pertanggungjawaban pidana Romahurmuziy dalam  kasus suap jual beli jabatan di Kementerian Agama. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk  menganalisis kesesuaian pertimbangan hakim terhadap asas kepastian, keadilan, dan kemanfaatan hukum. Analisis yuridis terhadap putusan hakim pada penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan a quo tidak memenuhi asas keadilan, kepastian, dan kemanfaatan hukum sehingga terdapat konflik norma. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah: (1) Bagaimana ratio decidendi hakim dalam Putusan Banding Nomor: 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI terhadap pertanggungjawaban pidana? (2) Apakah pertimbangan hakim dalam Putusan Banding  Nomor: 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI sudah tepat jika di tinjau dari prespektif asas kepastian, keadilan, dan kemanfaatan hukum?. Penulisan penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan metode pendekatan undang-undang (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Analisis yuridis terhadap ratio decidendi hakim dalam putusan a quo tersebut tidak menunjukkan kesesuaian terhadap pertanggungjawaban pidana dan pemenuhan asas keadilan, kepastian dan kemanfaatan hukum. Hasil penelitian ini memperoleh jawaban atas permasalahan yang ada bahwa pertama, pada tingkat banding terdapat 4 poin pertimbangan hakim dalam mengurangi hukuman Romahurmuziy yang menjadi konflik hukum. Sebab pada pertimbangannya bertentangan dengan unsur Pasal 11 UU Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang tindak pidana korupsi dan tidak sesuai jika di tinjau berdasarkan teori unsur pertanggungjawaban  pidana menurut Sudarto. Kedua, terhadap pertimbangan hakim pada putusan Nomor: 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI tersebut tidak menunjukkan kesesuaian pertanggungjawaban pidana dan pemenuhan tujuan hukum berdasarkan asas keadilan, kepastian dan kemanfaatan hukum. Kata Kunci: korupsi, penyuapan, ratio decidendi, analisis yuridis   Abstract This research discusses the ratio decidendi of judges regarding Appeal Court Decision Number 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI relating to the criminal liability held by Romahurmuziy in a bribery case of selling and buying an official position that took place in a Religious Court. This research also analyzes the relevance between the consideration made by the judges and the principles of certainty, justice, and legal merit. The result of the juridical analysis of the court decision shows that the consideration made by the judges in the Decision concerned does not meet the three principles, sparking the conflict of the norm. Departing from this issue, this research investigates (1) the ratio decidendi of the judges in Appeal Decision Number 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI regarding the criminal liability, and (2) whether the judicial consideration regarding the Decision mentioned is appropriate if it is seen from the perspective of certainty, justice, and legal merit principles. With a normative-juridical method and statutory and case approaches, the research reveals that the Appeal Decision concerned is not relevant to the liability and does not fulfill the three principles. First, at the appeal, the consideration made by the judges involved four points that refer to the alleviation of the sentencing given to Romahurmuziy, and this decision has led to a legal conflict; this consideration contravenes the provision of Article 11 of Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Criminal Corruption and is not relevant to the theory of criminal liability viewed by Sudarto. Second, regarding the judicial consideration as in Decision Number 9/PID.TPK/2020/PT DKI, there is no relevance between criminal liability and the fulfillment of legal objectives according to the principles of certainty, justice, and legal merit. Keywords: corruption, bribery, ratio decidendi, juridical analysi