DISSENTING OPINION DAN CONCURRING OPINION

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Pasal 14 yakni

"(1) Putusan diambil berdasarkan sidang permusyawaratan hakim yang bersifat rahasia.

(2) Dalam sidang permusyawaratan, setiap hakim wajib menyampaikan pertimbangan atau pendapat tertulis terhadap perkara yang sedang diperiksa dan menjadi bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari putusan.

(3) Dalam hal sidang permusyawaratan tidak dapat dicapai mufakat bulat, pendapat hakim yang berbeda wajib dimuat dalam putusan.

(4) Ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai sidang permusyawaratan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) dan ayat (3) diatur dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung."

Berdasarkan kaidah hukum yang terkandung dalam undang-undang di atas, memperlihatkan bahwa bagi hakim di Indonesia dapat memungkinkan untuk menyampaikan pendapatnya yang berbeda dan dimuatnya dalam putusan.

Perbedaan pendapat ini bercorak concurring opinion untuk adanya kata mufakat bulat dalam permusyawaratan hakim tetapi ada hakim yang mempunyai pendapat berbeda dengan pendapat mayoritas pada mufakat bulat tersebut.

Sedangkan pendapat yang bercorak dissenting opinion untuk tidak adanya kata mufakat bulat dalam permusyawaratan hakim, dan putusan ditempuh dengan surat terbanyak dari hakim, serta hakim yang berbeda pendapat terhadap surat terbanyak dalam permusyawaratan hakim wajib memuat pendapatnya dalam putusan.

Walaupun demikian, apabila terjadi kedua corak tersebut, hakim yang berbeda pendapat wajib untuk menandatangani dan mengikat dirinya kepada mufakat bulat atau pun terhadap suara terbanyak dalam permusyawaratan hakim.

Dengan adanya kaidah hukum demikian, maka bagi penegakan hukum di Indonesia dapat menjadi tercerahkan. Karena sudah menjadi kelajiman jika ada dua sarjana hukum yang berkumpul akan ada tiga pendapat hukum. Masyarakat akan menjadi paham dan mengerti, pada perkara hukum dapat terjadi pendapat hukum yang berbeda-beda. Dan jalan menuju perbedaan tersebut selalui disertai oleh landasan hukum yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan sehingga akan menjadikan masyarakat menjadi melek hukum.

Dengan adanya kaidah hukum dalam Pasal 14 di Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dapat menjadi "pintu hukum" bagi hakim yang mempunyai rasa pertanggungjawaban kepada masyarakat atas putusan yang diambilnya. Yang mana dahulu kala sebelum undang-undang ini, pendapat yang berbeda di dalam majelis hakim hanyalah bersifat rahasia dan hakim yang berbeda pendapat dengan mayoritas hanya bisa menempuh menulisnya di "buku rahasia"/"buku hitam" yang dipegang oleh Ketua Pengadilan Negeri.

Semoga untuk perjalanan dunia peradilan di Indonesia ke depannya dapat menjadi bermartabat dengan adanya kebolehan memuat pendapat yang berbeda dalam putusan hakim, yang selanjutnya hal tersebut dapat menjadi penelitian bagi para akademisi di pendidikan tinggi, sehingga hal yang berbeda pendapat tersebut bukan lagi sebagai hal yang rahasia di balik toga sang hakim.

Sumber:

Pada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenting_opinion:

"A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment.

A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent or become part of case law. However, dissenting opinions are sometimes cited as persuasive authority when arguing that the court’s holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a dissent in an earlier case is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case will write a majority opinion for the same rule of law cited by the dissent in the earlier case.

The dissenting opinion may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the case law, use of different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts. Dissents are written at the same time as the majority opinion, and are often used to dispute the reasoning used by the majority.

A dissent in part is a dissenting opinion which disagrees only with some specific part of the majority holding. In decisions that require multi-part holdings because they involve multiple legal claims or consolidated cases, judges may write an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part."

 

Pada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurring_opinion:

"In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different reasons as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as the plurality opinion.

There are several kinds of concurring opinion. A simple concurring opinion arises when a judge joins the decision of the court but has something to add. Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majority decision (that is, the case’s ultimate outcome) but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion.

In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered parts, and then concurring justices may state that they join some parts of the majority opinion, but not others, for the reasons given in their concurring opinion.[1] In other courts, such as the Supreme Court of California, the same justice may write a majority opinion and a separate concurring opinion to express additional reasons in support of the judgment (which are joined only by a minority).[2]

As a practical matter, concurring opinions are slightly less useful to lawyers than majority opinions. Having failed to receive a majority of the court’s votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent and cannot be cited as such. But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive precedent (assuming the point of law is one on which there is no binding precedent already in effect). The conflict in views between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion can assist a lawyer in understanding the points of law articulated in the majority opinion. Occasionally, a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal that he or she is open to certain types of "test cases" that would facilitate the development of a new legal rule, and in turn, such an concurring opinion may become more famous than the majority opinion in the same case. A well-known example of this phenomenon is Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944).

In some jurisdictions (e.g., California), the term may be abbreviated in certain contexts to conc. opn."

1 Response to “DISSENTING OPINION DAN CONCURRING OPINION”


  1. 1 Healthy for Life Agustus 17, 2014 pukul 11:09 am

    Appreciating the time and energy you put into your website and detailed information you
    present. It’s awesome to come across a blog every
    once in a while that isn’t the same old rehashed information.
    Excellent read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my
    Google account.


Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s




Jumlah Pengunjung

  • 98,298 pengunjung

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Bergabunglah dengan 12 pengikut lainnya

Top Rated