Publication Search

Guarantee fiduciary guarantees play an important role in economic financing in Indonesia. However, implementation of fiduciary guarantee execution often leads to legal conflicts, especially the abuse of executorial power by creditors. Court Decision Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 changes the execution mechanism to better protect the rights of debtors and emphasize the principle of justice. protect the rights of debtors and emphasize the principle of justice. This raises the need to reformulate Perkap No. 8/2011 to be relevant to the changes.changes. Research This research uses a normative method that analyzes the relevant laws and regulations related laws and regulations, the principles of justice, and their compatibility with social dynamics. The focus is to review the relevance and weaknesses of Perkap No. 8/2011 after the Constitutional Court Decision. The Constitutional Court's ruling limits unilateral execution and requires an acknowledgment of default or a court decision before execution. default or court decision before execution is carried out. This increases the protection of debtors' rights, but also adds procedural burdens for creditors. for creditors. The reformulation of Perkap No. 8/2011 is necessary to ensure that execution is more fair and lawful. The reformulation should include mechanisms that prioritize legality, protection of debtor rights, and oversight of abuse. monitoring against abuse. Synergy between the court, the police, and related parties need to be strengthened to create a balanced and transparent legal ecosystem and transparent.

The purpose of the research is to know and analyze the application of diversion to victimless criminal acts (narcotics) committed by children in Marisa District Court and to know and analyze the factors that influence the application of diversion to minors in Marisa District Court, Pohuwato Regency. The type of research used is normative-empirical legal research which basically combines a normative legal approach with the addition of various empirical elements. The implementation of diversion for victimless crimes is still less effective because there are still obstacles such as the absence of a special diversion room at the Marisa District Court, even though diversion is an important step in handling narcotics cases involving children and there are several factors related to the diversion process including the lack of adequate regulations in regulating the implementation of diversion for victimless crimes in the examination process in court, in the case of handling children in conflict with the law it should not only be the police, prosecutors, or juvenile judges who must have special qualifications related to handling children in conflict with the law who can handle the case, besides that the lack of understanding of the parties about the implementation of diversion.