Analysis of Judicial Considerations in Deciding on the Seizure and Return of Evidence of Illegal Logging
(Case Study of Decision Number 54/Pid.B/LH/2017/PNTjt and Decision Number 27/Pid.B/LH/2024/PN Plj)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25139/lex.v9i4.11048Keywords:
Judical Considerations, Evidence, Illegal Logging, Transportasion Tools, ConfiscationAbstract
Illegal logging is one of the most prevalent environmental crimes occurring in Indonesia. One critical aspect in its legal enforcement is the seizure and return of evidence, particularly transport equipment used in the commission of the crime. This study aims to analyze the judges’ considerations in deciding on the seizure and return of transport equipment as evidence in illegal logging cases, as well as to understand the legal procedures based on applicable regulations. This research employs a normative juridical method with statutory, case, comparative, and conceptual approaches. The data used are secondary data, including court decisions Number 27/Pid.B/LH/2024/PN Plj and Number 54/Pid.B/LH/2017/PN Tjt, along with legal instruments such as Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry and Supreme Court Circular Number 1 of 2008. In case No. 54/Pid.B/LH/2017, the panel of judges referred to Article 78 paragraph (15) of Law No. 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry, which stipulates that means of transportation used in committing a crime can be confiscated by the state. Therefore, in this case, the means of transportation used by the defendant was seized by the state. Conversely, in case No. 27/Pid.B/LH/2024/PN Plj, the panel of judges adopted a different legal consideration. In its ruling, the court ruled that the means of transportation be returned to the defendant, arguing that the economic value of the means of transportation was disproportionate to the state's losses, thus depriving the defendant of the confiscation of the means of transportation. This discrepancy raises questions about the certainty and fairness of the law in applying sanctions regarding the seizure of evidence.
References
BOOK
Kaputra, Iswan et al, Dampak Otonomi Daerah di Indonesia, 1st ed (Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia, 2013).
Napitupulu, I Dewa Ayu W & Widyani Diana R, Buku Materi Pembelajaran Hukum Agraria, 1st ed (jakarata: Universitas Kristen Indonesia, 2022).
Tunggal, Hadi Setia, Undang-Undang Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 Tentang kehutanan (Jakarta: Harvarindo, 2022).
Widiarty, Wiwik Sri, Buku Ajar Metode Penelitian (Yogyakarta: Publika Global Media, 2024).
JOURNAL
Hadi, Nanang Faisol & Nur Kholik Afandi, “Literature Review is A Part of Research” (2021) 1:3 Sultra Educ J 64–71.
Hamdani, Fathul et al, “Persoalan Lingkungan Hidup dalam UU Cipta Kerja dan Arah Perbaikannya Pasca Putusan MK Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020” (2022) 3:4 J Indones Berdaya 977–986.
Johar, Olivia Anggie, M Yusuf Daeng & Novitasari Manihuruk Tri, “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Pencemaran Dan Perusakan Lingkungan Hidup Akibat Pembakaran Hutan Dan Lahan Di Provinsi Riau” (2022) 21:2 J Huk Respublica Fak Huk Univ Lancang Kuning 134–154.
Pramitaqwati, Anindya & Emy Rosnawati, “Analisis Putusan Pembalakan Liar Terhadap Hutan Lindung di Indonesia” (2024) 2:1 Indones J Law Justice 13.
Widyaningsih, Meilana, “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Hutan dari Kegiatan Pembalakan Liar” (2022) J Perlindungan Huk Terhadap Hutan dari Kegiat Pembalakan Liar.
Yuniardi, Silvi, “Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbankan Syariah Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah Pasca Keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No 93/PUU-X/2012 dihubungkan Dengan Asas Kepastian Hukum (Studi Kasus Putusan No.28/PDT.G/2018PT.BDG)” (2020) 2:2 Nurani Huk 35.
Zulkarnain, Agung, Tita Kartikasari & Rizky Aulia Ammar, “Permintaan di Tengah Krisis Ekonomi” Univ Islam Negeri Palopo (2024) 12.
