Analisis Ratio Decidendi pada Kasus Ujaran Kebencian antara Dhani Ahmad Prasetyo Vs Pendukung Penista Agama

Abstract

In Indonesia, the spread of hate speech has significantly increased during election periods, which represent the pinnacle of democracy in the country. This development is further exacerbated by technological advancements and abuse of power, underscoring the need for an effective legal framework to address the issue of hate speech. This study focuses on analyzing the ratio decidendi at three levels of judicial decisions in the case of Dhani Ahmad Prasetyo versus supporters of blasphemy. The aim is to evaluate whether the ratio decidendi in these three judgments aligns with the theories and principles of law that promote justice, legal certainty, and utility. The research methodology employs a normative approach in legal science, conducting doctrinal or dogmatic analysis relying on literature as the primary source, including legislation, court decisions, and legal doctrines. Based on the research findings regarding the verdict in the hate speech case involving Dhani Ahmad Prasetyo, it is evident that although the panel of judges considered juridical, philosophical, and sociological aspects, the implementation of judicial considerations in this verdict shows imbalance. The resulting judgment tends to prioritize juridical aspects, neglecting crucial considerations such as witness testimonies and expert opinions that do not align with the judges' perspectives. Philosophical and sociological aspects encompassing broader legal principles such as Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, and MUI fatwas also did not receive adequate consideration in the decision-making process.