Ratio Decidendi dan Obiter Dictum: Evolusi Konseptual Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Putusan Pidana Indonesia

Erwin Susilo; Dharma Setiawan Negara

doi:10.22212/jnh.v16i2.5049

Ratio Decidendi dan Obiter Dictum: Evolusi Konseptual Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Putusan Pidana Indonesia

Erwin Susilo, Dharma Setiawan Negara

10.22212/jnh.v16i2.5049

| Abstract views: 0 |

Abstract

Artikel ini membahas integrasi antara ratio decidendi dan obiter dictum dalam putusan perkara pidana di Indonesia sebagai cerminan perkembangan paradigma hukum yang tidak lagi terikat pada klasifikasi tradisional sistem common law. Melalui metode yuridis normatif, tulisan ini menyoroti bagaimana berlakunya Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana, khususnya Pasal 53 ayat (2), mendorong pengadilan untuk mendahulukan nilai keadilan dibandingkan kepastian hukum, sehingga membuka ruang bagi obiter dictum untuk memperoleh relevansinya secara substantif. Dalam konteks ini, ratio decidendi dan obiter dictum dipahami bukan sebagai entitas yang terpisah secara ketat, melainkan saling melengkapi dalam membentuk struktur pertimbangan hukum yang integral. Artikel ini juga mengaitkan pergeseran tersebut dengan konsep positivisme hukum inklusif, yang mengakomodasi nilai-nilai moral dan kemanusiaan ke dalam sistem hukum positif. Dengan menelaah berbagai konsep, penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa penyatuan ratio decidendi dan obiter dictum adalah suatu keniscayaan secara yuridis dalam membangun putusan pidana yang adil dan kontekstual dalam sistem hukum Indonesia yang berlandaskan Pancasila.

Keywords

Ratio Decidendi; Obiter Dictum; Positivisme Inklusif; Pancasila, Hukum Pidana

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adhyaksanti, Fiona Wiananda, dan Kadek Wiwik Indrayanti. “Ratio Decidendi Penafsiran Klausula Eksonerasi Dalam Perjanjian Baku di Indonesia.” KRTHA BHAYANGKARA 17, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.31599/krtha.v17i1.1983.

Aniyie, Ifeanyichukwu Azuka. “Legal Pluralism and Child Identity: The Interplay of Igbo Worldview and English Traditions in Chinweze & Anor v Masi & Anor.” Journal of Asian and African Studies, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096251339092.

Babalola, Olumide. “When the Supreme Court’s Obiter Dictum Will Be Binding on All Other Courts.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3798459.

Bench-Capon, Trevor. “Explaining legal decisions using IRAC.” In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 2669, 2020.

Buckley, Joshua and Burdon, Mark and Huggins, Anna Godfrey, Nicholas. “Towards a legal prompt engineering strategy for identifying rationes decidendi.” Monash University Law Review 51 (2024): 1–34. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/255572/.

Camarena González, Rodrigo. “The Ratio Decidendi through Mexican Lens.” Problema. Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría del Derecho, 2022. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579.

Cezar, Caio, dan Soares Malpighi. “Precedentes Vinculativos em Matéria Tributária: como identificar a Ratio Decidendi de um Paradigma.” Revista Direito Tributário Atual 51, no. 4 (2022): 104–29. https://doi.org/10.46801/2595-6280.51.4.2022.1303.

Cucatto, Mariana, dan Toribio Enrique Sosa. “Obiter Dictum Y Argumentación Proyectiva En El Precedente ‘Einaudi’ De La Corte Suprema De La Nación.” Cuadernos de la ALFAL 10 (2018): 259–71. http://servicios.csjn.gov.ar/confal/ConsultaCompletaFallos.do?method=verDocumentos&id=714724.

Didikin, AB. “Inclusive Legal Positivism: Basic Arguments.” Право и государство№ 3 (100), n.d. 10.51634/2307-5201_2023_3_6.

Edwards, Phil, dan Phil Edwards. “Hans Kelsen , international law and the ‘ primitive ’ legal order Hans Kelsen , international law and the ‘ primitive ’ legal order ABSTRACT.” Jurisprudence 0, no. 0 (2025): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2025.2457805.

Efendi, Jonaedi, dan Johnny Ibrahim. Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Empiris. Depok: Kencana, 2018.

Guzansky, Clívia Marcolongo Pereira. “Elementos Da Ratio Decidendi: Fatos Materiais, Solução Jurídica E Motivação Justificatória.” Revista de Processo, Jurisdição e Efetividade da Justiça 7, no. 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.26668/indexlawjournals/2021.v7i2.8161.

Hakiki, Yuniar Riza, dan Taufiqurrahman. “The Idea of Structuring National Legislation Based on The Ratio of Decidendi & Obiter Dictum Constitutional Court Decision.” Jurnal Konstitusi 20, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2015.

Hakim, Arief Rachman, Yulita Dwi Pratiwi, Syahrir Syahrir, Wahyu Aliansa, dan Aisyah Anudya Palupi. “Kekuatan Hukum Pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Mengenai Penjabat Kepala Daerah.” JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW 6, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v6i1.5853.

Holbrook, Author Jonathan. “Holding or Dicta ?” North Carolina Criminal Law A UNC School of Government Blog, 2020. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/.

Hovell, Devika. “The Elements of International Legal Positivism.” Current Legal Problems 75, no. 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuac003.

Kammerhofer, Jörg. “Beyond the res judicata doctrine: The nomomechanics of ICJ interpretation judgments.” Leiden Journal of International Law 37, no. 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156523000547.

———. “The Pure Theory’s Nomomechanics and the Structural Analysis of International Law.” Kelsen’s Global Legacy: Essays on the Legal and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Hart), Forthcoming, 2023.

Khanderia, Saloni, dan Sagi Peari. “Party autonomy in the choice of law under Indian and Australian private international law: some reciprocal lessons.” Commonwealth Law Bulletin 46, no. 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/03050718.2020.1804420.

Kramer, Matthew H. “Incorporationism, Inclusivism, and Indeterminacy.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3782420.

Marinoni, Luiz Guilherme. “Ratio decidendi: Otras formas de identificación.” Discusiones 29, no. 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.52292/j.dsc.2022.3442.

Marzuki, Peter Machmudz. “The Essence of Legal Research is to Resolve Legal Problems.” Yuridika 37, no. 1 (2022): 37–58. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v37i1.34597.

Mertz, Marcel, Ilvie Prince, dan Ines Pietschmann. “Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: a conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 44, no. 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09640-4.

Mvogo, Dieudonne Mevono. “Addressing Fragmentation and Inconsistency in International Environmental Law Analysis of the Role of Specialised or Treaty Judicial Bodies.” Journal of Politics and Law 14, no. 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v14n2p84.

PAIÃO, OLIVIE SAMUEL. “Precedentes ‘Abrasileirados’ E A Inteligência Artificial: A Busca Pela Ratio Decidendida Súmula Vinculante Da Súmula Vin.” Centro Universitário Eurípedes de Marília- UNIVEM, 2021.

Permatasari, Puspita Radlka, dan Yenny Eta Sulistyarini, Rachmi Widyanti. “Ratio Decidendi Analysis in the Settlement of Marital Property Disputes: Implications for Legal Practice in Indonesia.” Legal Horizons 22, no. 3 (2024): 57–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.54477/LH.25192353.2024.3.pp.57-67.

Pinto, Layla de Oliveira Guimarães. “A Inobservância da Ratio Decidendi na Aplicação de Precedentes pelos Juristas Brasileiros.” Layla de Oliveira Guimarães Pinto. -- Rio de Janeiro, 2024.

Prodanović, Srđan. “The Structure of Common Sense and Its Relation to Engagement and Social Change – A Pragmatist Account.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 51, no. 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2022-0016.

Rîpeanu, Andreea, dan Maria-Irina Grigore-Rǎdulescu. “Ratio Decidendi End The Science Of Law.” Legal and Administrative Studies 2, no. 25 (2021): 61–77. http://www.jlas.upit.ro/.

Rivera Domíguez, Angello, dan Renato Cjahua Alvites. “Iura Novit Arbiter. Un breve análisis de su aplicación a nivel nacional e internacional.” Forseti: Revista de Derecho 13, no. 19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.21678/forseti.v13i19.2265.

Samanta, Debayan. “Difference between Obiter Dicta and Ratio Decidendi.” Penacclaims 15, no. April (2021).

Shcherbanyuk, Oksana, Vіtalii Gordieiev, dan Laura Bzova. “Legal nature of the principle of legal certainty as a component element of the rule of law.” Juridical Tribune 13, no. 1 (2023): 21–31. https://doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.02.

Silva, Rafael Silveira e. “Right to Be Forgotten or Right to Know: Brazilian <i>Ratio Decidendi</i>” Beijing Law Review 14, no. 04 (2023). https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2023.144104.

Simicek, Vojtech. “Obiter dictum in the Practice of Czech Courts: when to write it and when to avoid it.” Pravnik 162, no. 8 (2023).

Singh, Amitpal C. “The Highest Suggestion in the Land: Obiter Dicta and the Modern Supreme Court of Canada.” Osgoode Hall LJ 61 (2024): 1–37.

Sofjan, Dicky. “Pancasila and The Dignity of Humankind.” International Journal of Interreligious and Intercultural Studies 1, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.32795/ijiis.vol1.iss1.2018.82.

Stinson, Judith M. “Preemptive Dicta: The Problem Created by Judicial Efficiency.” Loy. LAL Rev 54 (2020). https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/lla54&section=20.

Sulistyo, Tabah. “Eksistensi Jalur Non Karier dalam Seleksi Hakim Agung.” Jurnal Yudisial 14, no. 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v14i2.478.

Susilo, Erwin. “Analisis Konsepsi Asas Legalitas dalam KUHP Baru: Perspektif Kepastian Hukum.” In Bunga Rampai Kajian Dunia Peradilan, diedit oleh Bagus Sujatmiko, 1–19. Yogyakarta: CV. PUSTAKA HUKUM, 2025.

Susilo, Erwin, dan Muhammad Rafi. “Pendekatan Favor Defensionis dalam Merealisasikan Hak Terdakwa untuk Menghadirkan Saksi atau Ahli.” Veritas et Justitia 10, no. 2 (2024): 343–63. https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.v10i2.8479.

Teixeira, Sergio Torres, Fabio Gabriel Breitenbach, dan Lorena Guedes Duarte. “An Introduction to the Introduction of a System of Judicial Precedents in Brazil: Stare Decisis Brasiliensis.” Beijing L. Rev 16, no. 1 (2025): 178–200. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2025.161009.

University, Open. “Legal skills and debates in Scotland.” OpenLearn, The Open University, Section 2.2.2, 2025. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68344&section=2.2.2.

Yin, Kenneth, dan Carmela De Maio. “Teaching stare decisis to first-year law students in higher education: a pedagogical blind alley?” Law Teacher 58, no. 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2024.2312030.

Yu, Fangyi, Lee Quartey, dan Frank Schilder. “Exploring the Effectiveness of Prompt Engineering for Legal Reasoning Tasks.” In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.858.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v16i2.5049