The Objectiveness of The Alleged Victims as A Parameter for Law Enforcement in A Defamation Case

Emmilia Rusdiana

doi:10.28932/di.v14i2.5985

Authors

Emmilia Rusdiana Universitas Negeri Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.28932/di.v14i2.5985

Keywords:

Public Interest, The Accusation of Defamation, The Objectivity of the Alleged

Abstract

Activities in the complaints form from victims who feel libel by others have increased and occurred at all levels of the police in Indonesia. Everyone can feel offended by different insults, so the law enforcement of criminal offenses based on Article 310 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code requires objectivity to accusations of defamation. The research points to a detriment as the basis for defamation, it is the concrete form of this detrimental requires further study as a manifestation of the substitute for defamation in the public interest. This article aims to validate the objectivity of the victim's alleged insult and defamation allegations. Article uses normative research type and conceptual approach with qualitative analysis. The defamation case regarding the meaning of the public interest. Justice is a baseline with the realization in concrete situations. The interest form of the community through the property by demanding actions that are proportional, appropriate, balanced, and in harmony with the rights of everyone. An emphasis on values prevailing in society (morals and customs). There are direct interests that are primarily economic. Then, the basis for filing a victim's complaint requires concrete evidence of the consequences of the alleged defamation, namely losses. Calculation of Losses. The specific requirement is that material or immaterial loss arise during the pre-contractual, contractual, and post-contractual periods. The complainant or victim must show the contract between the complainant and the offender.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Books

Friedman, L. M. Sistem Hukum: Perspektif Ilmu Sosial. Bandung, Nusa Media, 2011.

Hadjon, Philipus M, et al. Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia. Yogyakarta, Gajah Mada University Press, 2008.

Hamzah, A. Delik-Delik Tertentu di Dalam KUHP. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, 2015.

Hiariej, E. O. Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana. Yogyakarta, Cahaya Atma Pustaka, 2014.

Huijbers., T. Filsafat Hukum Dalam Lintasan Sejarah. Yogyakarta, Kanisius, 1982.

Marbun, SF and Mahfud MD. Pokok-Pokok Hukum Administrasi Negara. Yogyakarta, Liberty, 2009.

Marzuki, P. M. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta, Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2008.

Raz, J. The Argument from Justice, or How Not to Reply to Legal Positivism. Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy. United Kingdom, Hart Publishing, 2017.

Soekanto, Soerjono and Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta, PT Raja Grafindo Persada, 2001.

Soesilo, R. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) serta Komentar-Komentarnya Lengkap Pasal Demi Pasal. Bogor, Politeia, 2013.

Sunggono, Bambang. Metodologi Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta, PT Raja Grafindo, 2003.

Journals

Banjarani, Desia Rakhma, et al. “Insult in National Criminal Law and Islamic Criminal Law: Sanctions Prespective and Legal Developments Review.” Ius Ponale, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2023, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.25041/ip.v4i1.2867.

Chuasanga, A., and Ong Argo Victoria. “Legal Principles Under Criminal Law in Indonesia Dan Thailand.” Jurnal Daulat Hukum, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019, pp. 131-138, https://doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v2i1.4218.

Claes, E., and M. Krolikowski. “The limits of legality in the criminal law.” Facing the Limits of the Law, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2009, pp. 89–107, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79856-9_6.

Czarniawska, B. “Humiliation: A standard organizational product?” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19, No. 7, 2008, pp. 1034–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2007.01.004.

Dewi, I Gusti Ayu Agung Omika. “Understanding Data Collection Methods in Qualitative Research: The Perspective of Interpretive Accounting Research.” Journal of Tourism Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2021, pp. 23-34, https://doi.org/10.38142/jtep.v1i1.102.

Douglas, B. M. “Suing Google, Facebook or Twitter for Defamation.” Communications Law Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2021, pp. 53-57, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353036640_'Suing_Google_Facebook_or_Twitter_for_Defamation'_2021_402_Communications_Law_Bulletin_53.

Ezekiel, K. “Our Right to Share, Their Right to Know: An Analysis of Public Interest Defense to Defamation.” Lentera Hukum, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2021, pp. 241-266. https://doi.org/10.19184/ejlh.v8i2.23833.

Fernández, S, et al. “The protective effect of agency on victims of humiliation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 102, 2022, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104375.

Fernández, S., et al. “Understanding the role of the perpetrator in triggering humiliation: The effects of hostility and status.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 76, 2018, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.12.001.

Firmanda, H. “Hakikat Ganti Rugi Dalam Perspektif Hukum Ekonomi Syariah dan Hukum Perdata Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Respublica, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2018, pp. 236–251, https://doi.org/10.31849/respublica.v16i2.1438.

Garoupa, N. “The economics of political dishonesty and defamation.” International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1999, pp. 167–180, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(99)00003-4.

Latifah, Emmy and Moch Najib Imanullah. “The Roles of International Law and Technology Advances.” Brawijaya Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2018, pp. 102-116, https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2018.005.01.07.

Harsey, S. J., and J. J. Freyd. “Defamation and DARVO.” Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2022, pp. 481–489, https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2022.2111510.

Indriati, Ervina Dwi, et al. “Philosophy of Law and the Development of Law as a Normative Legal Science.” International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022, pp. 314-321.

Moutos, C. P., et al. “Principles of Online Defamation for Physicians.” Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 114, No. 3, 2020, pp. e413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.08.1204.

Muflihatunnisa, M. “Verbal Responses toward Insults in the Celebrity Read Mean Tweets Segment.” Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies (IJELS), Vol. 9, No. 1, 2023, pp. 39–52, https://doi.org/10.24071/ijels.v9i1.5914.

Spaic, A., et al. “Decriminalization of defamation – The Balkans case a temporary remedy or a long term solution?” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, Vol. 47, 2016, pp. 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2016.05.002.

Zifana, M., et al. “The portrayal of defamation case defendant in court verdict.” Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2021, pp. 94–103, https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34672.

Proceedings

Erowati, E. M. “Compensation of defamation in Indonesia.” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Globalization of Law and Local Wisdom (ICGLOW 2019), Atlantis Press, October 2019, pp. 335–338, https://doi.org/10.2991/icglow-19.2019.82.

Thesis or Dissertations

Bezemek, Christoph and Tomas Dumbrovský. The Concept of Public Interest, Graz Law Working Paper No 01. Working Paper Faculty of Law University of Graz, Austria, 2020.

Petroneus. Gugatan Ganti Rugi Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Atas Dasar Pencemaran Oleh Pers Di Indonesia (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Atas Gugatan Soeharto Melawan Majalah Time, Tomy Winata Melawan Koran Tempo Dan Djokosoetono Melawan Majalah Selecta). Undergraduate Thesis Faculty of Law Brawijaya University Surabaya, Indonesia, 2013.

Syamsudin, Amir. Tinjauan Yuridis Konsep ‘Kepentingan Umum’ Menurut Pasal 310 Ayat (3) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) Di Indonesia Sebagai Alasan Penghapus Pidana (Strafuitsluitingsgrond). Dissertation Faculty of Law University of Indonesia Depok, Indonesia, 2018.

Law and Regulations

Presidential Regulation No. 65 Year 2006 on the Amendment of Presidential Regulation No. 36 Year 2005 on Land Acquisition for the Implementation of Development for Public Interest.

Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number 55 Year 1993 Concerning Land Acquisition for the Implementation of Development for the Public Interest.

Presidential Instruction No. 9 Year 1973 Concerning the Implementation of the Revocation of Land Rights and Objects Thereon.

Online Resources

Amin, Al. “Pejabat Publik, Pelapor Terbanyak Pencemaran Nama Baik UU ITE.” Merdeka.Com, 31 Agustus 2014, https://www.merdeka.com/peristiwa/pejabat-publik-pelapor-terbanyak-pencemaran-nama-baik-uu-ite.html.

Lestari, Sri. “Polisi Diminta Cermat Tangani Kasus Haris Azhar.” BBC News Indonesia, 4 Agustus 2016, http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indonesia/2016/08/160803_indonesia_narkoba.

Pusiknas Bareskrim Polri. “Kasus Pencemaran Nama Baik Meningkat.” Pusiknas,polri.go.id, https://pusiknas.polri.go.id/detail_artikel/kasus_pencemaran_nama_baik_meningkat.

Sofian, A. “Tafsir Pasal Pencemaran Nama Baik.” Binus University Business Law, April 2017, https://business-law.binus.ac.id/2017/12/28/tafsir-pasal-pencemaran-nama-baik/v.

Wardani, Agustin Setyo. “Dianggap “Baper”, Penguasa Jadi Pelapor Kasus UU ITE Terbanyak.” Liputan6, 18 Desember 2016, https://www.liputan6.com/tekno/read/2690431/dianggap-baper-penguasa-jadi-pelapor-kasus-uu-ite-terbanyak.