ANALISA HUKUM IMPLEMENTASI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR : 65/PUU-VIII/2010 DIHUBUNGKAN KEABSAHAN PEMBUKTIAN SAKSI TESTIMONIUM DE AUDITU DALAM PERISTIWA PIDANA DAN KITAB UNDANG-UNDANG HUKUM ACARA PIDANA

Abstract

Abstrak
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor : 65/PUU-VIII/2010, memperluas makna saksi dan keterangan saksi. Putusan hasil pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 terhadap Undang-undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Perubahan makna saksi dan keterangan saksi dalam pasal 1 angka 26 dan angka 27 KUHAP yaitu orang yang dapat memberikan keterangan dalam tindak pidana yang tidak selalu ia dengar, ia lihat, dan ia alami sendiri. Perubahan makna saksi dan keterangan saksi melindungi hak tersangka dalam pembelaan melalui pengajuan saksi a de charge. Pendekatan yuridis normatif penelitian melakukan penelusuran kepustakaan meninjau keselarasan KUHAP, sistem pembuktian dan putusan MK memberikan penilaian relevansi saksi yang meringankan. Mahkamah menilai keseimbangan hak antara tersangka/terdakwa sebagai individu dan masyarakat/negara diwakili oleh penyelidik. MK tidak memberikan batasan dalam makna perluasannya. Penilaian keabsahan pembuktian keterangan saksi dipenegak hukum. Para penegak hukum, wajib melaksanakan putusan bersifat final, serta erga omnes. Pada putusan MK seharusnya mempertimbangkan asas hukum berlaku secara internasional sehingga putusan, dapat dilaksanakan tanpa perdebatan.Setelah mengkaji asas equality before the law, konsekuensi hukum pelanggaran ketentuan Pasal 116 ayat (3) dan (4) KUHAP, putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi menekankan pada due process of law, aspek prosedur memperoleh bukti.

Kata Kunci: a de charge, equality before the law, due process of law

Abstract
Decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 65/PUU-VIII/2010, expands the meaning of witnesses and witness statements. Decision on the review of Law Number 8 of 1981 against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Changes in the meaning of witness and witness testimony in Article 1 point 26 and number 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely a person who can provide information about a crime that he does not always hear , he saw, and he experienced it himself. Changes in the meaning of witnesses and witness statements protect the suspect's rights in defense through the submission of witnesses a de charge. The research-normative juridical approach conducts a literature search reviewing the alignment of the Criminal Procedure Code, the evidentiary system and the Constitutional Court's decision to provide an assessment of the relevance of mitigating witnesses. The Court assessed the balance of rights between the suspect/defendant as an individual and the community/state represented by the investigator.The Constitutional Court does not provide limitations in the meaning of its expansion. Assessment of the validity of the testimony of witnesses in law enforcement. Law enforcers are obliged to implement final decisions, as well as erga omnes. The Constitutional Court's decision should consider internationally valid legal principles so that decisions can be implemented
without debate. After reviewing the principle of equality before the law, the legal consequences of violating the provisions of Article 116 paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Constitutional Court's decision emphasizes the due process of law, procedural aspects of obtaining evidence.