BATAS KEWENANGAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG SEBAGAI JUDEX JURIS DALAM PENILAIAN FAKTA HUKUM PADA TINGKAT KASASI BERDASARKAN PASAL 253 KUHAP (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1466 K/PID/2024)

Abstract

The authority of the Supreme Court as judex juris in criminal cassation proceedings is limited to reviewing the application of law rather than reassessing factual findings established by judex facti. However, in practice, the distinction between legal assessment and factual assessment often becomes blurred, particularly in cases where the Supreme Court overturns an acquittal and imposes a conviction. This issue is reflected in Supreme Court Decision Number 1466 K/Pid/2024, which raises questions regarding the limits of the Court’s authority under Article 253 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The urgency of this study lies in the need to clarify the parameters distinguishing legal review from factual reassessment in order to maintain legal certainty and the consistency of the hierarchical judicial system. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory and case approaches. Legal materials consist of legislation, court decisions, and relevant legal doctrines, which are analyzed through qualitative and systematic interpretation. The findings indicate that the Supreme Court’s authority at the cassation level is confined to examining the correctness of legal application based on facts established by lower courts. Nevertheless, Decision Number 1466 K/Pid/2024 demonstrates the existence of a grey area between correcting legal errors and reassessing factual circumstances, highlighting the ongoing challenge of maintaining the boundaries of judex juris authority within Indonesia’s criminal justice system.