{"title":"《健康隔离法》第93条对法院裁决因果关系证明的批评","authors":"Mahrus Ali","doi":"10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of the judges' legal considerations in proving a causal relationship in Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This is a normative legal research by bearing in mind that what is studied are the legal facts and legal considerations of judges in 3 (three) court decisions that have permanent legal force in the case of Habib Rizieq Shihab, the case of Bambang Iswanto and Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno, and the case of Agus Basunondo. The results of the study concluded that none of the court decisions correctly considered that the convict's actions were the cause of the emergence of public health emergencies. The proof of the effect has even shifted from the emergence of a public health emergency to a crowd, a result that is not stated in the offense of Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This study recommends that the Supreme Court needs to make guidelines on steps to prove causality in court decisions.","PeriodicalId":239318,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kritik Terhadap Pembuktian Hubungan Kausalitas Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Terkait Pasal 93 Undang-Undang Kekarantinaan Kesehatan\",\"authors\":\"Mahrus Ali\",\"doi\":\"10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of the judges' legal considerations in proving a causal relationship in Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This is a normative legal research by bearing in mind that what is studied are the legal facts and legal considerations of judges in 3 (three) court decisions that have permanent legal force in the case of Habib Rizieq Shihab, the case of Bambang Iswanto and Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno, and the case of Agus Basunondo. The results of the study concluded that none of the court decisions correctly considered that the convict's actions were the cause of the emergence of public health emergencies. The proof of the effect has even shifted from the emergence of a public health emergency to a crowd, a result that is not stated in the offense of Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This study recommends that the Supreme Court needs to make guidelines on steps to prove causality in court decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":239318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Kritik Terhadap Pembuktian Hubungan Kausalitas Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Terkait Pasal 93 Undang-Undang Kekarantinaan Kesehatan
This study aims to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of the judges' legal considerations in proving a causal relationship in Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This is a normative legal research by bearing in mind that what is studied are the legal facts and legal considerations of judges in 3 (three) court decisions that have permanent legal force in the case of Habib Rizieq Shihab, the case of Bambang Iswanto and Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno, and the case of Agus Basunondo. The results of the study concluded that none of the court decisions correctly considered that the convict's actions were the cause of the emergence of public health emergencies. The proof of the effect has even shifted from the emergence of a public health emergency to a crowd, a result that is not stated in the offense of Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This study recommends that the Supreme Court needs to make guidelines on steps to prove causality in court decisions.