PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA PELAKU ILLEGALLOGING DALAM PUTUSAN NOMOR 185/PID.B/LH/2020/PN.PNJ

Abstrak

Penegakan hukum terhadap illegal logging di Indonesia masih menghadapi tantangan akibat lemahnya penerapan izin lingkungan sebagai instrumen preventif dalam proses peradilan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pertimbangan hakim dalam memeriksa dan memutus perkara illegal logging serta mengevaluasi kesesuaian sanksi pidana yang dijatuhkan terhadap asas keadilan dalam Putusan Nomor 185/Pid.B/LH/2020/PN Pnj. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan statute approach, case approach, dan conceptual approach yang dianalisis secara kualitatif. Data diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan dan dokumen putusan pengadilan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan Pasal 36 Undang-Undang No. 32 Tahun 2009 tentang kewajiban memiliki izin lingkungan tidak dipertimbangkan dalam pertimbangan hakim, sehingga menciptakan kekosongan hukum dalam penegakan hukum lingkungan. Selain itu, sanksi pidana terhadap terdakwa sebagai pelaku lapangan dinilai tidak proporsional dan belum memenuhi prinsip keadilan substantif, prosedural, dan restoratif. Penegakan hukum yang hanya menyasar pelaku lapangan tanpa menyentuh aktor intelektual menyebabkan hilangnya efek jera dan melemahkan legitimasi negara dalam pengendalian kerusakan hutan. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan pendekatan yang lebih holistik dan multi-door dalam menjerat pelaku kejahatan lingkungan.

Law enforcement against illegal logging in Indonesia continues to face challenges due to the weak implementation of environmental permits as a preventive instrument in judicial processes. This study aims to analyze the judges’ considerations in examining and deciding illegal logging cases and to evaluate whether the criminal sanctions imposed align with the principles of justice, based on Decision Number 185/Pid.B/LH/2020/PN Pnj. This research uses a normative legal method with a statute approach, case approach, and conceptual approach, analyzed qualitatively. Data were collected through literature review and analysis of court decisions. The study finds that Article 36 of Law No. 32 of 2009, which mandates the possession of environmental permits, was not considered in the judges' reasoning, resulting in a legal vacuum in environmental law enforcement. Moreover, the criminal sanctions imposed on the field-level perpetrator were deemed disproportionate and failed to fulfill the principles of substantive, procedural, and restorative justice. Law enforcement that targets only field actors without addressing intellectual actors weakens deterrence and the state’s legitimacy in controlling forest destruction. This study recommends a more holistic and multi-door approach in prosecuting environmental crimes.