What has been a fundamental issue of this study what base for the lawgivers in determining "type and number" of crime showing a disapprobation. Is there any certain pattern used by the lawgivers in determining the case in Special Criminal Code, primarily to do its weighting when compared with the general pattern used in the Criminal Code. This research was conducted by using a normative juridical method, mainly by analyzing the symptoms suggested by the legislators in the enactment of criminal threats. The results of this study indicate that in the Special Criminal Law, becoming the "symbol" of Criminal Law as the identity of Indonesia, there is no specific pattern in conducting the weighting of criminal.

No abstract

Formally, the review can be carried out more than once, based on the Decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) No. 34/PUU-XI/2013, which states that Article 268 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and therefore has no binding force as law. This paper intends to discuss the second review's philosophical, juridical, and sociological aspects. The Supreme Court, through SEMA No. 10 of 2009 as strengthened by SEMA No. 7 of 2014, confirms that a review of more than one time is only possible if there is an object of the case there are 2 (two) or more judicial review decisions that conflict one another. The restriction on review from being submitted only once is intended to provide justice to the victim, the community, and the state. The extraordinary effort remains within a measurable corridor and does not limit access to justice for the convict.

Perumusan tindak pidana terhadap agama dan kehidupan beragama dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia masih menyisakan berbagai persoalan. Tulisan ini membahas terkait bagaimana bentuk perumusan tindak pidana terhadap agama dan kehidupan beragama dalam KUHP dan RKUHP mendatang. Bentuk penelitian ini yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan hukum, konseptual, dan kasus. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan RKUHP telah mengadakan perubahan yang mengarah pada “konkretisasi” dan “objektifikasi” tindak pidana terhadap agama dan kehidupan beragama, sehingga prinsip lex certa dan lex stricta benar-benar diperhatikan. RKUHP juga telah lebih maju dalam merumuskan tindak pidana terhadap agama dan kehidupan beragama yang didasarkan pada pemikiran tentang penghormatan terhadap hak beragama sebagai hak asasi yang dilindungi Konstitusi. Semoga dengan diberlakukannya RKUHP dapat menjadi solusi dalam penegakan hukum terhadap berbagai tindak pidana terhadap agama dan kehidupan beragama di Indonesia masa mendatang.