Abstract
This study aims to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of the judges' legal considerations in proving a causal relationship in Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This is a normative legal research by bearing in mind that what is studied are the legal facts and legal considerations of judges in 3 (three) court decisions that have permanent legal force in the case of Habib Rizieq Shihab, the case of Bambang Iswanto and Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno, and the case of Agus Basunondo. The results of the study concluded that none of the court decisions correctly considered that the convict's actions were the cause of the emergence of public health emergencies. The proof of the effect has even shifted from the emergence of a public health emergency to a crowd, a result that is not stated in the offense of Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This study recommends that the Supreme Court needs to make guidelines on steps to prove causality in court decisions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
