Local Wisdom as the Reason for the Eradication of Crimes in the Case of the Land Clearing Crime by Burning
There are differences or ambiguities in the application of Article 69 paragraph (2) UUPPLH concerning local wisdom in clearing land by burning. By analyzing the judges’ considerations in cases that were decided in the 2010-2020 period and combining interviews and document studies, this study tries to clarify the debates or differences in the application and its position in the criminal law system. This study reveals that, there are judges who use local wisdom as the basis for acquitting the defendant and some who use it as a condition that reduces the sentence. Furthermore, the provisions that should only be binding on Article 69 paragraph (1) letter h of the UUPPLH are actually used in indictments other than the said article. The difference in the application of local wisdom in the courts occurs because there is no further explanation about the intent of paying attention to local wisdom in their respective regions so that in court the provisions of Article 69 paragraph (2) UUPPLH are interpreted differently by judges. In addition, the provisions of Article 69 paragraph (2) UUPPLH are actually more accurately positioned as the reason for eliminating criminals in the context of not being against material law. Therefore, the local wisdom should be changed to be in line with the RKUHP so that later it can apply in general, as a form of recognition of customary law or the living law in society.