Proporsionalitas Pemidanaan Tindak Pidana Terorisme Pasca-KUHP Nasional: Analisis PERMA Nomor 2 Tahun 2026 dan Batas Diskresi Hakim

Authors

  • Putu Ayu Veguita Putri Ningsih Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta Author
  • Slamet Tri Wahyudi Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta Author

Keywords:

sentencing proportionality, terrorism offences, Supreme Court Regulation, judicial discretion, National Criminal Code

Abstract

The entry into force of the National Criminal Code on 2 January 2026 reshaped the regulatory architecture of terrorism offences: Articles 6 and 7 of the Counter-Terrorism Law were repealed and their function transferred to Articles 600 and 601 of the Code, while Article 9, Article 13(c), and Article 15 of that law remain in force, and Law Number 1 of 2026 on Criminal Adjustment together with Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2026 on Sentencing Guidelines for Certain Terrorism Offences add further normative layers. This study aims to explain the relative position of those four instruments in determining punishment and to formulate how judges may assess culpability, harm, and offender circumstances consistently without dissolving the individualisation of punishment. The method employed is normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the latter drawing on the sentencing guidelines of England and Wales; legal materials were collected through literature study and analysed descriptively and prescriptively in six sequential stages, from the identification of the legal issues to the construction of the model. The findings show that the guidelines operate accessorily and depend on proof of an offence exhaustively listed within their scope rather than on a general labelling of a case as terrorism, and that they alter neither the elements of the offence nor the statutory sentencing range. The study also identifies a coherence problem in Article 15, which still refers to repealed provisions. Its contribution is a five-layer audit model of sentencing reasoning that keeps judicial discretion alive yet open to argumentative scrutiny.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2023 Nomor 1, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6842).

[2] Muladi dan B.N. Arief, Teori-teori dan kebijakan pidana (Alumni, 1998).

[3] M. Latifah dan P.J. Hairi, “Pengaturan pedoman pemidanaan KUHP baru dan implikasinya pada putusan hakim,” Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum untuk Keadilan dan Kesejahteraan, 15(2), 2025. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v15i2.4573

[4] Center for Detention Studies, Pola pemidanaan tindak pidana terorisme di Indonesia (Center for Detention Studies, 2021). https://cds.or.id/pola-pemidanaan-tindak-pidana-terorisme-di-indonesia/

[5] A. Ashworth, Sentencing and criminal justice, edisi ke-6 (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

[6] Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 2026 tentang Pedoman Pemidanaan Tindak Pidana Terorisme Tertentu.

[7] Monitor Pos, “MA sosialisasikan pedoman pemidanaan terorisme, WKMA Suharto: Bukan borgol, melainkan kompas,” Monitor Pos, 5 September 2026. https://www.monitorpos.net/2026/09/ma-sosialisasikan-pedoman-pemidanaan.html

[8] Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2003 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2002 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Terorisme Menjadi Undang-Undang (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2003 Nomor 45, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4284).

[9] Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2018 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2003 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2002 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Terorisme Menjadi Undang-Undang (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2018 Nomor 92, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6216).

[10] Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pendanaan Terorisme (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2013 Nomor 50, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 5406).

[11] Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2026 tentang Penyesuaian Pidana.

[12] N.D. Irmawanti dan B.N. Arief, “Urgensi tujuan dan pedoman pemidanaan dalam rangka pembaharuan sistem pemidanaan hukum pidana,” Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 3(2), 2021, 205–223.

[13] Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2020 tentang Pedoman Pemidanaan Pasal 2 dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.

[14] M.I.W. Pratama dan D. Daviska, “Penerapan pedoman pemidanaan bagi hakim sebelum diundangkannya KUHP baru,” Jurnal Fakta Hukum, 4(1), 2025, 13–20.

[15] United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, “CTED Insight Briefing explores emerging terrorist use of generative technologies and digital ecosystems,” United Nations, 28 Mei 2026. https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/ctc/news/cted-insight-briefing-explores-emerging-terrorist-use-generative-technologies-and-digital

[16] United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism, Practice guide on artificial intelligence and preventing and countering violent extremism (United Nations, 2026). https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/sites/default/files/2026-02/PCVE_&_%20AI_Practice_Guide_2026_Web.pdf

[17] United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, Beyond messaging: Terrorist propaganda as operational infrastructure, CTED Trends Report (United Nations, September 2026).

[18] R. Kelly, “Sentencing terrorism offences: No harm intended,” Criminal Law Review, (9), 2019, 772–785.

[19] E.O.S. Hiariej, Prinsip-prinsip hukum pidana, edisi revisi (Cahaya Atma Pustaka, 2016).

[20] Sentencing Council, Terrorism offences: Definitive guideline – Preparation of terrorist acts (Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2018). https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/preparation-of-terrorist-acts/

[21] A. von Hirsch dan A. Ashworth, Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles (Oxford University Press, 2005).

Downloads

Published

2026-10-03

Issue

Section

Articles