Analysis of the Application of the Crime of Accession to the Crime of  Illegal Transportation and Trade of Fuel Without a Business License (Study Decision Number 163/Pid.Sus-LH/2020 /PN Mrt)

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji perbedaan pendapat hakim (dissenting opinion) dalam menafsirkan unsur penyertaan (deelneming) pada tindak pidana pengangkutan dan niaga bahan bakar minyak ilegal tanpa izin usaha, putusan nomor 163/Pid.Sus-LH/2020/PN Mrt, di mana hakim mayoritas menyimpulkan bahwa perbuatan para terdakwa adalah perbuatan yang berdiri sendiri dan bukan merupakan perbuatan penyertaan, sedangkan hakim menilai bahwa perbuatan para terdakwa memenuhi unsur penyertaan meskipun terdapat pelaku utama yang masih berstatus DPO sehingga terdakwa tetap bisa dikenai pertanggungjawaban pidana. Jenis penelitian yang dipakai yaitu penelitian hukum normatif dan pendekatan yang dipakai adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, pendekatan kasus, serta pendekatan perbandingan hukum yang didukung dengan pendekatan futuristik. Pendekatan kasus digunakan untuk mengkaji ratio decidendi dalam putusan pengadilan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan putusan antara hakim mayoritas dan hakim dissenting terletak pada cara mengonstruksikan unsur penyertaan. Hakim mayoritas menggunakan pendekatan yang restriktif dengan menekankan adanya kerja sama langsung antara terdakwa, sehingga mengabaikan peran pelaku lain yang berstatus DPO. Sebaliknya, hakim dissenting menggunakan pendekatan yang lebih substantif dengan melihat adanya keterkaitan peran dalam satu rangkaian tindak pidana, sehingga unsur penyertaan tetap dapat terpenuhi meskipun terdapat pelaku yang belum tertangkap.

Kata Kunci: Penyertaan, Dissenting opinion, Tindak Pidana Migas, Pasal 55 KUHP, Pasal 20 KUHP Nasional

This study aims to examine the difference of opinion of judges (dissenting opinion) in interpreting the element of participation (deelneming) in the crime of transporting and trading illegal fuel oil without a business permit, decision number 163 / Pid.Sus-LH / 2020 / PN Mrt, where the majority of judges concluded that the defendants' actions were independent acts and not acts of participation, while the judge considered that the defendants' actions fulfilled the element of participation, even though there was a main perpetrator who was still a fugitive, so that the defendant could still be subject to criminal responsibility. The type of research used was normative legal research, and the approaches used were the statutory approach, conceptual approach, case approach, and comparative legal approach, supported by a futuristic approach. The case approach was used to examine the ratio decidendi in court decisions. The results of the study showed that the difference in decisions between the majority of judges and the minority of judges lies in the way they construct the element of participation. The majority of judges used a restrictive approach by emphasizing direct cooperation between the defendants, thus ignoring the role of other perpetrators who were fugitives. In contrast, the judge uses a more substantive approach by looking at the interconnected roles in a series of criminal acts, so that the element of involvement can still be fulfilled even though there are perpetrators who have not been caught.

Keywords: Participation, Dissenting opinion, Oil and Gas Crimes, Article 55 of the Criminal Code, Article 20 of the National Criminal Code