Berhukum Secara Objektif Pada Kasus Baiq Nuril: Suatu Telaah Filsafat Hukum Melalui Kajian Paradigmatik

Abstract

Belakangan ini. kasus Baiq Nuril benar-benar menyita perhatian publik. Kasus hukum ini bermula saat Nuril yang saat itu masih bekerja sebagai pegawai honorer di SMAN 17 Mataram, merekam percakapan telepon Kepala Sekolah kepadanya yang berkonten kesusilaan dan bernada melecehkan dirinya. Singkat cerita, melalui rekannya, rekaman pembicaraan tersebut tersebar. Nuril pun dilaporkan atas sangkaan Pasal 27 (1) Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (ITE). Proses hukum bergulir, Pengadilan Negeri Mataram memberikan vonis bebas kepada Nuril. Namun, Penuntut Umum mengajukan kasasi dan Mahkamah Agung akhirnya memvonis Nuril bersalah dengan hukuman pidana penjara 6 bulan kurungan dan denda lima ratus juta rupiah. Inilah yang kemudian memunculkan polemik. Masyarakat memprotes putusan yang dianggapnya tidak adil tersebut. Kekecewaan masyarakat kepada hukum sangat terasa melalui berbagai gerakan untuk membela Nuril, baik melalui penggalangan dana maupun aksi demonstrasi. Mereka kecewa kepada hukum yang nyatanya malah memberi hukuman pada seorang korban pelecehan seksual. Berbagai persepsi buruk terhadap hukum bermunculan, masyarakat ramai memberi pandangan awam mereka terhadap kasus ini. Secara ilmiah, kasus ini semestinya dapat diuraikan dengan jelas melalui ilmu hukum, terlebih melalui filsafat hukum. Adalah tugas kita sebagai akademisi untuk menguraikan setiap duduk peristiwa kasus menjadi lebih terang, agar tidak menimbulkan kesesatan berpikir di masyarakat. Berdasarkan uraian ini, penulis akan menjawab permasalahan mengenai bagaimanakah cara berhukum objektif yang diterapkan dalam kasus ini, serta bagaimana telaah filsafat hukum melalui kajian paradigma akan menguraikan persoalan hukum ini. Pembahasan akan dijabarkan dalam paradigma penulis yakni paradigma konstruktivisme dan melalui metode hermenutikal/dialektikal.Recently, the Baiq Nuril case really caught the public's attention. This legal case began when Nuril, who at that time was still working as a temporary employee at the SMAN 17 Mataram, recorded the principal's telephone conversation with him who was in decency and insulted him. Long story short, through his colleague, the recording of the conversation was spread. Nuril was reported on the suspicion of Article 27 (1) of the Electronic Information and Transaction Law (ITE). The legal process was rolling, the Mataram District Court gave Nuril a free verdict. However, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal and the Supreme Court finally sentenced Nuril guilty to a sentence of 6 months imprisonment and a fine of five hundred million rupiah. This is what later led to the polemic. The community protested the decision which he considered unfair. The people's disappointment in the law was felt through various movements to defend Nuril, both through fundraising and demonstrations. They are disappointed in the law which in fact actually punishes a victim of sexual abuse. Various bad perceptions of the law have sprung up, people are busy giving their lay views on this case. Scientifically, this case should be clearly explained through legal science, especially through legal philosophy. It is our duty as academics to elaborate on each sitting the case of the case becomes brighter, so as not to cause an error in thinking in society. Based on this description, the author will answer the problem of how the objective legal method applied in this case, and how the study of legal philosophy through the study of paradigms will describe this legal issue. The discussion will be elaborated in the author's paradigm of the constructivism paradigm and through the hermenutical / dialectical method.