Vol. 5, No.3, March 2024

E-ISSN: 2723-6692

P-ISSN: 2723-6595

http://jiss.publikasiindonesia.id/

1. Introduction

Evil has been known since the existence of human civilization. The higher the civilization, the

more rules and more violations. It is often said that crime is a shadow of civilization (Emilia Susanti,

2018). Society has experienced developments that can give rise to crimes that must be faced by the

government and society. Evil is behavior that deviates from the provisions of criminal law. Crime does

ius." That is, it can be stated that where there is law there is or was once a society (Irmansyah, 2013).

Norms as a system will be able to play a good role in society if the implementation instrument is

equipped with authority in the field of law enforcement (Friedman, 1975). In the field of law

enforcement, the police is one of the government institutions that has an important role in the rule of

law. In a legal state, legal life is largely determined by structural factors or legal institutions in addition

to other factors, such as legal substance factors and legal culture factors (Sadjijono, 2008). From the

meaning of the word above, it is clear that the police are law enforcers, protectors, as protectors and

guides of the community, especially in the context of compliance and obedience to applicable laws

such as criminal law.

Criminal law is a legal rule that binds an act that meets certain conditions, a consequence in the

be threatened against someone who commits a crime if the person who committed it is not held

criminally responsible. Criminal liability is based on the principle of guilt, meaning that there is no

crime without guilt, so there needs to be rules and processes to find the truth of events that occur in

a criminal act (Lewokeda, 2018).

Rules are necessary to guard and prevent humans from chaos and to provide a sense of security.

Therefore, it is necessary to resolve a problem regulated in Indonesian law including the investigation

process to find the truth about the problem that occurs. Investigation is a process or activity carried

out by law enforcement the police to find and collect evidence in the first stage to be convicted.

Investigation actions are regulated in Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(KUHAP) jo Article 6 Paragraph 1 and Article 1 Paragraph 2.

the proper function of a judicial process. Obstruction of legal proceedings is a criminal act because it

will hinder law enforcement and damage the image of law enforcement agencies.

The regulation of obstruction of justice in the Criminal Code of the many articles that can be

analogous to an act of obstruction of justice, there is only one article that clearly states the element of

purpose to obstruct or complicate the examination and investigation as well as to the prosecution as

contained in Article 221 Paragraph (1) 1st and 2nd (Shinta Agustina dan Saldri Isra, 2015). It is

affirmed in Article 221 Paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code that;

"Everyone who commits an act of obstruction of the legal process

unattainable in various forms of acts so it is determined as a crime of obstruction of justice the crime

of this article is very light, one of the obstacles that often arises is the level of resistance from law

enforcement officials and stakeholders who provide actions that can slow down and will certainly

hinder all judicial processes against applicable legal provisions.

Along with the development of the times, crimes that occur are increasingly rampant among

the community, including murder, persecution, and obscenity, of course, this cannot be denied its

existence as it is rumored that there are law enforcers who commit premeditated murder.

The criminal act of murder is one form of crime that appears in a person's soul where the act is

contrary to the norms and laws that exist in society including religious norms, customary legal norms,

and norms of criminal provisions and human rights to life (Simbolon, Simarmata, & Rahmayanti,

the death penalty, the toughest sanction applicable in a regulation. The provisions of laws and

regulations contained in the Criminal Code (KUHP) regulate one of the crimes of murder contained in

Articles 338 to Article 350.

As was found in the case of Obstruction Of Justice against premeditated murder as in the case of

the position used by the researcher in this study through case decision number Number

806/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Jkt Sel that the defendant Arif Rachman Arifin, S.IK., M.H together with witness

Ferdy Sambo, witness Hendra Kurniawan, witness Chuck Putranto, witness Baiquni Wibowo, witness

Agus and witness Irfan Widyanto, located at the Security Post of the Duren Tiga Police Housing

Complex, South Jakarta, those who participated in committing acts intentionally and without rights

Sambo so that they would not be spread anywhere.

After witness Baiquni Wibowo returned to the Duren Tiga complex with his CCTV copy, the

defendant said "Weren't we told to see and copy it?" when watching the CCTV footage with the

defendant, witnesses Baiquni, Ridwan, and Chuck turned out Brigadier Yoshua was still alive. In shock

condition, the defendant contacted witness Hendra Kurniawan and told him the truth and then

reported it back to Ferdy Sambo, but he still wanted to feel right, and finally, Ferdy Sambo asked the

defendant to delete and destroy the file. Then the defendant deliberately broke the laptop and into

several pieces resulting in the electronic system not working.

the defendant was categorized as a Psychic Overmacht (SUHADA, 2018). The definition of overmatch

by the framer of the law has been regulated in Article 48 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) and cannot be

punished by whoever has done something under the influence of a compelling circumstance (Tahir,

2018).

Based on the decision of the judge of the South Jakarta District Court with case number

806/Pid.sus/2022/PN. Jkt Sel judge ruled that the defendant was sentenced to Article 48 to Article

32 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 19 of 2016 Amendments to Law number 11 of 2006

concerning Information and Electronic Transactions jo Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal

Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 (ten) months and a fine of Rp10,000,000.00 (Ten Million

Rupiah) which was proven to legally meet the elements of "Those who do, who ordered to do or who

is a need for a theory of criminal liability to describe what makes the judge's consideration in deciding

this case.

In this latest analysis, the main focus is to examine in depth how criminal accountability for

perpetrators of criminal acts obstruction of justice, as well as whether the verdict given to

perpetrators has fulfilled a substantive sense of justice for society. This analysis takes a normative

approach by considering the results of previous research and discussions as well as Court rulings in

cases spelled out in previous studies.

This research makes a new contribution to the understanding of criminal liability of obstruction

of justice perpetrators in premeditated murder cases. The results of this analysis can be used as a

basis for developing more effective legal policies in handling similar cases in the future. In addition,

of justice in cases of murder and to find out the sense of substantive justice in perpetrators of

obstruction of justice in Decision number 806/Pid.Sus/2022/PN JKT SEL. The results of this research

are expected to be able to increase knowledge, as well as enrich studies in criminal responsibility for

perpetrators who obstruct the judicial process (Obstruction Of Justice) in cases of murder

2. Materials and Methods

method. The normative juridical approach is intended to gain an understanding of the clear subject

Cell. Sources The legal materials used by the author in this study are as follows: Secondary data

consists of 3 (three) legal materials, namely primary legal materials, namely binding legal materials,

secondary legal materials are legal materials that explain primary legal materials which include

literature, papers, and others that have relevance to the problem to be studied such as the South

Jakarta District Court Decision Number: 806/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. JKT. Cell.

3. Result and Discussion

Criminal responsibility is a mechanism to determine whether the defendant is responsible for

hold him accountable for the criminal acts he committed. Criminal liability is a form that is criminally

accountable to someone who commits a criminal act or criminal act, for criminal liability must be

clearer in advance who will be accounted for. Related to the case in Decision Number

806/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Jkt Sel that the defendant Arif Rachman Arifin, S.IK., M.H together with witness

Ferdy Sambo, witness Hendra Kurniawan, witness Chuck Putranto, witness Baiquni Wibowo, witness

Agus and witness Irfan Widyanto, located at the Security Post of the Duren Tiga Police housing

complex in South Jakarta they participated in acts intentionally and without rights or against the law

by committing actions that resulted in disruption of the system electronics and cause the electronic

system to not work properly. This means that the defendant Arif Rachman has committed acts of

obstruction of justice and investigation.

footage with the defendant, witnesses Baiquni, Ridwan, and Chuck turned out Brigadier Yoshua was

still alive. In shock condition, the defendant contacted witness Hendra Kurniawan and told him the

truth and then reported it back to Ferdy Sambo, but he still wanted to feel right, and finally, Ferdy

Sambo asked the defendant to delete and destroy the file. Then the defendant deliberately broke the

laptop and became several pieces resulting in the electronic system not working. Defendant Arif

Rachman committed the act because of the influence and pressure derived from Ferdy Sambo's

emotions. Thus, Ferdy Sambo's words caused the defendant to have free will to refute and go against

his orders.

Table 1. The Public Prosecutor's indictment against the defendant Arif Rachman in decision number

Sus/2022/PN Jkt Sel

The judge decided the case with the first charge of subsidair which proved that the defendant

in judgment number 806/Pid. Sus/2022/PN. Jkt Sel was proven to have committed unlawful acts that

orders of his superior position and the defendant felt pressure obtained from Ferdy Sambo's orders.

Related to proving that the defendant is wrong or not, if studied with the theory of criminal

responsibility, the defendant Arif Rachman who committed the act should be included in the

justification because of an order from an authorized official, pressure and previously the defendant

did not know the facts of the contents of CCTV.

The author analyzes that the criminal provision of perpetrators who commit acts (Obstruction

Of Justice) in terms of making the electronic system not work has not been by applicable rules because

based on the case of the above position the defendant is ordered by his superior who has the position

of authority not to divulge and the defendant feels afraid and based on the theory of criminal

responsibility the defendant feels a error in the facts that have been seen because in the original CCTV

obstruction of justice, will not be separated from a suspect and defendant who must be held

accountable for their actions. In this case, according to Martiman Prodjhamidjo, criminal

responsibility has conditions for a person to be held criminally responsible, namely:

1. There is an unlawful act in the form of a mistake

2. The ability to take responsibility for the fault make

3. The absence of excuses that erase mistakes and forgiving reasons

A person who commits a criminal act will only be punished if he is legally and convincingly

proven to have committed a mistake for his act. For this reason, holding the defendant accountable

for his actions must meet the elements of criminal liability (Hakim, 2020).

Based on decision No. 806/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Jkt Cell AKBP. Arif Rachman Arifin S.I.K., M.H. is

the perpetrator who obstructed the judicial process when he damaged the CCTV DVR footage of

Brigadier Joshua's murder by deliberately breaking the storage of the recording file on the laptop he

was carrying. Arif Rachman can be held accountable for his actions if he meets the requirements of

criminal liability. Thus to determine whether a person can be convicted, a person must meet the

conditions of criminal liability namely:

a. There is an element of unlawful acts in the form of errors;

actions intentionally or due to negligence has committed acts that cause circumstances or

consequences prohibited by criminal law and are carried out responsibly (Amir Ilyas, 2012).

The second requirement for criminal responsibility is that there is an inner relationship

between the perpetrator and the criminal act which is a form of guilt, namely in the form of

intentionality (dolus) or negligence (culpa). In carrying out his actions to cause disruption of the

electronic system or cause the electronic system to not work, there is a purpose or purpose to follow

the scenario made by his superior, namely Ferdy Sambo, to delete and destroy all CCTV recording

files around Ferdy Sambo's official house.

The element of intentionality consists of two, namely the element of wanting and knowing, in

this case, Arif Rachman knows that this ferdy sambo command contains elements of lies to mature

as well so the defendant did this to make the electronic system not work properly.

Arif Rachman committed the act of obstructing the judicial process because he felt there was

pressure felt from Ferdy Sambo's words and emotions that forced him to cover up his lies by deleting

all CCTV footage, and arranging checks at investigators so that the scenario created could work. The

person ordered by Ferdy Sambo carried out a criminal act that made all electronic systems not work

and the accused deliberately broke the laptop containing CCTV recording files.

According to Erna Dewi, unlawful acts in the form of mistakes can be proven by intentional

mistakes or derived from negligence on the part of the perpetrator. An intentional occurrence may

a criminal act.

The author analyzes that the defendant Arif Rachman in committing his act, namely by breaking

a laptop whose contents were copied by CCTV files, had fulfilled the elements of unlawful acts in the

form of intentional purposes and had errors in the facts before. If the defendant Arif Rachman has

known and has a will for the consequences that will or may occur, then in this case what the defendant

did was proven to have committed an unlawful act that violated Article 48 to Article 32 of the ITE Law

jo Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code "regarding the criminal act of making the electronic

system not work and damaging an electronic information belonging to other people or the public"

and has violated the provisions on Perkap No. 14 of 2011 by ordering South Jakarta Police

investigators to equate BAP with BAP on witness Bharada E, follow the autopsy process and delete

A person is said to be able to take responsibility when viewed from (Tongat, 2013):

1) The normal or healthy state of the soul and the inner state of a person, not in a state of mental

defect in his growth so that his intellect becomes less perfect to distinguish between good and

bad. In this case, the defendant Arif Rachman is not defective in himself and the defendant's

condition is physically and spiritually healthy so that because he can distinguish between good

and bad, the perpetrator can be responsible for the actions he committed.

2) The ability of his soul to be able to realize the nature of his actions, can determine his will for

those actions. In destroying 20 CCTV footage of the murder, Brigadier Joshua has determined his

own will with his consciousness, namely by breaking a laptop containing CCTV recording files.

The author analyzes that in this case, the defendant Arif Rachman has fulfilled the element of

reasons and justifying reasons. The excuse of forgiveness or the reason for removal of guilt concerns

the person of the maker in the sense that this person cannot be reproached (according to law) and

the act committed by the accused remains unlawful and remains a criminal offense but he is not

convicted because there is no wrongdoing (Sitorus, 2020).

The reasons for forgiveness contained in the Criminal Code are Article 44 of the Criminal Code,

Article 49 Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code, and Article 51 Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code. A

justifying reason is a reason that can eliminate the unlawful nature of the deed. So that what is done

by the maker then becomes an action that can be said to be appropriate and right. The justification

causes the applicable provisions in the criminal law not to be applied to a person accused of a criminal

offense for reasons of criminal removal and forgiveness is a reason that has committed a criminal act

can not be punished as evidenced by supporting articles for criminal removal reasons and forgiving

reasons.

The author analyzes that the defendant can be said to have not fulfilled the excuse of forgiveness

because in his person the defendant has no defects in growth or is disturbed by other diseases. And

what the defendant Arif Rachman did is not included in the justification that erases the unlawful

nature of a criminal act. So the actions of the defendant Arif Rachman could not fulfill the justification

or forgiving reasons.

Paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code.

Before further explaining the analysis of the formulation of elements in the case of perpetrators

of obstruction of justice in the case of premeditated murder in Decision Number 806 / Pid.

Sus/2022/PN Jkt Sel, then the author will compile the elements proven in the case of Decision

Number 806/Pid. Sus/2022/PN Jkt Sel, the following is a table of proving elements from the results

of the formulation of element analysis in Article 48 jo 32 of the ITE Law jo Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1

of the Criminal Code, namely:

Table 2. Analysis of the Formulation of Elements in Article 48 to Article 32 of the ITE Law jo

Article 55

Source: Data processed by the author based on facts revealed at the trial in the judgment.