KETIDAKCERMATAN DALAM PERTIMBANGAN PUTUSAN KASUS KAPAS TRANSGENIK

Loura Hardjaloka

Abstract


ABSTRAK
Hakim di dalam memeriksa, mengadili, dan memutus perkara memiliki peran yang sangat sentral untuk menegakkan hukum dan keadilan. Agar itu bisa tercapai maka hakim tersebut harus memiliki kapasitas yang memadai dan harus selalu cermat ketika menangani sebuah perkara. Akan tetapi, hal tersebut tidak kita temukan di dalam penanganan kasus kapas transgenik oleh Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Jakarta. Pada kasus itu majelis hakim tidak cermat dalam menganalisis tindakan tergugat yang menerbitkan izin tanpa memperhatikan aman atau tidaknya kapas transgenik sebagai produk GMos. Selain itu, hakim juga tidak cermat dalam melihat pelanggaran penerapan prinsip kehati-hatian (precautionary principle) dan pengkajian risiko (risk assessment) dalam pelepasan organisme transgenik. Ketidakcermatan tersebut terjadi karena hakim tidak menelusuri penerbitan izin penggunaan organisme transgenik oleh tergugat selaku Menteri Pertanian melalui SK Nomor 107/Kpts/KB.430/2/2001 tentang Pelepasan Secara Terbatas Kapas Transgenik Bt DP 5690B Sebagai Varietas Unggul dengan Nama NuCOTN 35B (Bollgard), kepada tergugat II intervensi I.

Kata kunci: ketidakcermatan hakim, organisme transgenik, prinsip kehati-hatian, hak gugat.

ABSTRACT
The role of judges in analyzing and deciding a case is of a great significance in the framework of law enforcement and justice. It means that judge must be highly qualified in handling a case. However, this is not reflected in the judge’s conduct when deciding the case of transgenic cotton in the Jakarta Administrative Court. In this case, the judges did not scrupulously analyze the defendant’s actions to issue the license regardless of the safety of transgenic cotton as a GMos product. In addition, the judges are also negligent in scrutinizing the violations of the  precautionary principles and risk assessment in the release of genetically modified organisms. This happened because the judges did not discover any further information on the issuance of licenses of using of the genetically modified organisms by the defendant, occupying as Minister of Agriculture, through Decree Number 107/Kpts/KB.430/2/2001 on Limited Release of Transgenic Cotton Bt DP 5690B as Quality Seed Named NuCOTN 35B (Bollgard), to the defendant II intervention I.

Keywords: negligent judges, genetically modified organisms, precautionary principle, the right to sue.

Keywords


negligent judges; genetically modified organisms; precautionary principle; the right to sue

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bahagiawati. 2001. “Manajemen Resistensi Serangga Hama pada Pertanaman Tanaman Transgenik Bt.” Jurnal Tinjauan Ilmiah Riset Biologi dan Bioteknologi Pertanian, Vol. 4, Nomor 1, Hal. 58-59.

Boskovic, Jelena V, et.al. 2010. “Assessing Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops.” Journal of Agriculture Sciences, Vol. 55 Nomor 1, Hal. 95.

Clayton, Susan D. 2012. Environmental and Conservation Psychology. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Cooney, Rosie & Barney Dickson. Ed. 2012. Biodiversity & The Precautionary Principle. United Kingdom: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Gray, J.S. & J.M. Bewers. 1996. Towards a Scientific Definition of The Precautionary Principle. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 32 Nomor 11, Hal. 768-771.

Haritz, Miriam. 2011. An Inconvenient Deliberation: The Precautionary Principle’s Contributing to the Uncertainties Surrounding Climate Change Liability. Belanda: Kluwer Law International BV.

Harremoes, Poul, et.al. 2013. The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century. United Kingdom: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Herman, Muhammad. 2001. “Perakitan Tanaman Tahan Serangga Hama Melalui Teknik Rekayasa Genetik.” Buletin AgroBio, Vol. 5

Nomor 1, Hal. 1-13.

Hilbeck, Angelika, et.al. 2011. “Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants - Concepts And Controversies.” Environmental Sciences Europe, Vol. 23 Nomor 3, Hal. 1200-1225.

Khan, Mohammad Sayyar. 2011. “Future Challenges. In Environmental Risk Assessment Transgenic Plants with Abiotic Stress Tolerance.” Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Review, Vol. 6 Nomor 9, Hal. 199-213.

Koch, Bernhard A. 2010. Damage Caused by Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Survey of Redress Options for Harm to Persons, Property or the Environment. Vienna: Austrian Academy Science, Institute for European Tort Law.

Lee, Maria. 2009. EU Regulation of GMOs: Law and Decision Making for a New Technology. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Miao, Jin, et.al. 2011. “The Impact of Transgenic Wheat Expressing GNA”. Environmental Entomology, Vol. 40 Nomor 3, Hal. 743-748.

MINDNEC. 1987. Ministerial Declaration of the Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea. London, UK, 24-25 November 1987.

Munthe, Christian. 2011. The Price of Precaution and The Ethics of Risk. New York: Springer.

OECD. 2013. “Low Level Presence of Transgenic Plants In Seed and Grain Commodities: Environmental Risk/Safety Assessment, and Availability and Use of Information”. Akses 29 September 2014. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2013)19&doclanguage=en.

Oliver, Melvin J, et.al. 2013. Plant Gene Containment. United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

OSPAR. 1992. Final Declaration on the Ministerial Meetings of the Oslo and Paris Commissions. Oslo and Paris Conventions for the Prevention of Marine Pollution, Paris, 21-22 September 1992.

Renn, Ortwin. 2011. “Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis.” Ambio, Vol. 40 Nomor 2, Hal. 231-246.

Seralini, Gilles-Eric, et.al. 2012. “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the U.S. -- The First Sixteen Years.” Environmental Sciences Europe, Vol. 26 Nomor 2, Hal. 1823-1826.

Sharples, FE. 1982. Spread of Organisms with Novel Genotypes: Thoughts from an Ecological Perspective. Technology Bulletin, Vol. 6 Nomor 1, Hal. 43-56.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29123/jy.v7i3.76

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Jurnal Yudisial

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.