Differences in the Application of Substantive Law by Judges at the District Court Level and the Cassation Level in Cases of Unlawful Control of Plantation Land

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the differences in the application of substantive law by judges at the District Court level and at the cassation level in cases of unlawful control of plantation land. Differences in decisions across judicial levels often raise questions regarding the consistency of law enforcement, particularly in the application of substantive legal norms that form the basis of judicial reasoning. This research employs a normative juridical method with a statutory approach and a case study of relevant court decisions. The differences in the application of substantive law are caused by variations in judges’ interpretations of the elements of the criminal offense, particularly concerning aspects of control, ownership, and the legality of land rights. In addition, differences in assessing evidence and legal facts revealed during trial proceedings also influence judicial outcomes. At the cassation level, the Supreme Court tends to emphasize the conformity of legal application with statutory provisions and prevailing legal principles, thereby correcting errors in the application of law made by the judex facti. The conclusion of this study is that the differences in the application of substantive law between the District Court and the cassation level reflect the dynamics of the law enforcement process. However, they also indicate the need to enhance consistency and harmonization in legal application to ensure legal certainty and a sense of justice. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen judicial capacity and establish clearer guidelines in interpreting substantive law in similar cases.