Publication Search

In this study, advocates are guaranteed legal protection to implement the right to defence in criminal cases.   to learn how criminal advocates are protected if they enforce the law.   The privilege of immunity shields advocates from civil or criminal litigation for good faith work inside and outside the court.   This study uses normative juridical research, which examines current laws and regulations.   Analysis of relevant legislation is needed for this research.   According to the study, Article 16 of Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates does not adequately describe advocates' immunity rights.   Lack of clear explanations of protection types, rights constraints, and good faith between advocates and other parties may lead to power abuses.   More extensive norms that are in keeping with other articles of the law are needed to apply advocates' immunity rights proportionately, guaranteeing freedom in performing their profession while maintaining society's and justice's legal interests.

In social practice, land sale and purchase transactions are still frequently conducted through private agreements, mainly driven by mutual trust between the parties, cost considerations, and the perception that such procedures are simpler and faster. From the perspective of civil law, such sale and purchase agreements remain valid and legally binding as long as they fulfill the legal requirements of a valid contract as stipulated in Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code. However, within the national land law system, land sale and purchase agreements executed under private deeds cannot serve as a legal basis for the transfer of land rights because they are not made before a Land Deed Official (Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah/PPAT) as required by statutory regulations. This divergence in legal regulation gives rise to legal uncertainty, particularly for buyers acting in good faith. On the one hand, the agreement creates rights and obligations under civil law; on the other hand, it fails to provide legal certainty over land rights due to its inability to be registered. This condition reflects a tension between the civil law regime and the land law regime, while also indicating the weak legal protection afforded to good-faith buyers. These issues constitute the basis and urgency of this research.

Disputes over unpaid insurance claims are a problem that frequently arises in insurance practice and can harm consumers both financially and psychologically, while also reducing public trust in the insurance industry. Such disputes are generally triggered by differing interpretations of policy provisions, alleged breaches of the good-faith principle, and administrative obstacles, which ultimately lead to civil conflicts between the insured and the insurer. To provide access to dispute resolution that is faster, fairer, and more affordable than litigation, the Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan/OJK) established the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institution for the Financial Services Sector (Lembaga Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Sektor Jasa Keuangan/LAPS SJK) through OJK Regulation No. 61/POJK.07/2020. This study aims to analyze the mechanism for resolving disputes over unpaid insurance claims through LAPS SJK and to assess its effectiveness in providing legal protection and legal certainty for consumers. The research method employed is normative legal research using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach, through an examination of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials related to contracts, insurance, consumer protection, and alternative dispute resolution. The findings show that LAPS SJK has the authority to handle civil disputes in the financial services sector, including insurance disputes, provided that the parties have a written agreement and have first pursued internal dispute resolution (Internal Dispute Resolution/IDR). Dispute resolution at LAPS SJK is conducted through mediation and arbitration. Mediation is facilitated by a mediator to encourage the parties to reach a settlement agreement, which may be reinforced into a Deed of Settlement (Akta Perdamaian) that is final, binding, and enforceable. If mediation fails, arbitration offers a more determinative resolution through a final and binding award that can be enforced after being registered with the District Court. Overall, LAPS SJK is considered effective because its procedures are structured, time-bound, and provide a fee waiver for mediation in retail and small-claim cases up to IDR 750,000,000. However, its effectiveness remains conditional, as it depends on the existence of a written agreement between the parties, the obligation to undergo IDR, and good faith in the mediation process.

Corruption cases in Indonesia often involve the recovery of state assets, including properties encumbered by mortgages (hak tanggungan). This research conducts a normative legal analysis on how current law treats such pledged assets when they become objects of state confiscation in corruption crimes. We examine Indonesian legislation (especially the Tipikor Act, TPPU Act, and Mortgage Act), judicial practice, and principles of justice and legal certainty. The Bank Perumda BPR Purworejo case is used as an illustrative case study: here fictitious loans and misused collateral led to state losses of hundreds of millions of rupiah, and investigators seized assets (including four mortgaged properties) as evidence. The analysis finds that existing rules inadequately protect good-faith creditors: courts have noted that a corruption verdict does not automatically erase a prior mortgage lien, and that a certified mortgage confers a preferential right equal to a judgment. In practice, however, law enforcement often seizes all assets of the convict without first verifying third-party rights, creating legal uncertainty and perceived injustice. We argue that fair outcomes require stricter safeguards for creditors (e.g. mandatory review of collateral status before seizure) and consideration of equitable principles. In conclusion, we recommend legal reforms or guidelines to balance the state’s recovery goals with protection of bona fide mortgagees, so as to uphold substantive justice while maintaining legal certainty.

An agreement is a fundamental basis in civil law relations because it gives rise to rights and obligations for the parties who bind themselves. For an agreement to be valid, consent must arise from the free will of the parties without any defect of will as regulated in Articles 1320 and 1321 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata). In Indonesian legal practice, apart from classic defects of will such as coercion (dwang), mistake (dwaling), and fraud (bedrog), a modern form of defect of will has also developed, namely abuse of circumstances (misbruik van omstandigheden). Abuse of circumstances occurs when one party exploits the weak condition, dependency, or ignorance of the other party to obtain unfair advantage in an agreement. This research formulates the problems of how the concept of defect of will in abuse of circumstances is applied in the jurisprudence of Indonesian contract law and what are the legal consequences of abuse of circumstances in an agreement. The method used is normative legal research with a statutory approach and conceptual approach, as well as related legal literature. The conclusion of this research shows that abuse of circumstances is a modern form of defect of will recognized through doctrine and jurisprudence. The legal consequence is that the agreement can be annulled because the element of free consent is not fulfilled. This legal consequence provides protection for the aggrieved party and confirms that the principle of freedom of contract is not absolute, but is limited by good faith, propriety, and balance.

The enforcement of civil court judgments in Indonesia frequently encounters obstacles due to parties’ bad faith conduct, such as covert asset transfers or groundless resistance to execution. Although the principle of good faith is a foundational tenet in civil law, its application in the enforcement phase remains inconsistent. This study examines the concept and legal status of the good faith principle in Indonesian positive law concerning civil judgment enforcement and analyzes the legal consequences of its violation. A normative juridical method is employed, utilizing library-based research on primary and secondary legal sources. The findings reveal that while good faith is recognized in substantive civil law, it has not been explicitly incorporated into civil procedural law. Consequently, bad faith actions during enforcement rarely incur clear procedural sanctions. Theoretically, this underscores the need to integrate ethical principles into civil procedure doctrine; practically, it calls for regulatory reforms to embed good faith as a binding procedural obligation in judgment enforcement.

The concept of force majeure is essential in business agreements in Indonesia, as it regulates the release of contractual obligations that cannot be fulfilled due to events beyond their control such as natural disasters, pandemics, conflicts, or government policies. This study examines force majeure clauses in business agreements in Indonesia from a normative juridical perspective, focusing on the legal framework, its application practices, and its legal implications for contractual certainty. Using normative juridical qualitative methods, data were analyzed from the Civil Code (KUHPerdata) Articles 1244–1245 and 1444–1445, legal doctrine, and literature. The results of the study underlined that the force majeure clause has a strong legal basis in the Civil Code, which exempts the affected party from the obligation of compensation if the failure to perform the obligation is caused by events beyond his control. The application of this clause in the contract allows for the revision, postponement, or termination of a temporary contract, thereby guaranteeing legal certainty and protecting the principles of good faith and contractual fairness. In addition, the formulation of detailed clauses in the contract is crucial to prevent potential legal disputes down the road and ensure fair protection for all parties involved in the business agreement.

Public information disclosure is a manifestation of open and accountable government which is the basis for publik information requests. Everyone has the right to obtain public information through the mechanism of requesting information from public bodies. The problem that arises is that some information requessts are not made in good faith thereby failing to reflect the purpose of public information disclosure as a means of monitoring government performance. To adress this issue there is a mechanism to terminate the resolution of such information disputes in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of terminating informastion disputes that are not conducted in good faith and the obstacles in its implementation. The results of the study indicate that the termination of informastion disputes that are not conducted in good faith is not yet effective due to factors that influence the effectiveness of the law in society not being fulfilled including legal factors, societal factors, and cultural factors. The obstacles faced in the implementation of the termination of public information disputes that are not conducted in good faith include legal enforcement mechanism, public information management, and understanding of public information transparency. The effectiveness of a law is determined by the overall elements supporting its enforcement so it is hoped that the implementation of the termination of publik information disputes does not violate human rights and citizens’ rights.

Notarial deeds as authentic instruments hold a crucial role in Indonesia’s civil law evidence system, providing perfect proof under Article 1868 of the Civil Code. However, in practice, such deeds are often denied by one party in court, raising debates about the certainty of their evidentiary power. This study examines the legal consequences of denying a notarial deed for the parties in litigation and the assurance of legal certainty for those holding such deeds. Using R. Soeroso’s Theory of Legal Consequences and Jan Michael Otto’s Theory of Legal Certainty, this normative juridical research employs statutory, conceptual, analytical, and case approaches, with literature-based data collection and interpretative legal analysis. The findings reveal that denial of a notarial deed may create new legal relationships, alter good-faith relations into disputes, and result in sanctions imposed by court rulings. Meanwhile, legal certainty remains guaranteed, as authentic deed regulations are clear, binding, and enforceable, serving as a guideline in resolving disputes and upholding sanctions.  

The execution of Mortgage Rights (Hak Tanggungan) represents legal certainty as regulated in Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights. Execution of the collateral object can be carried out through private sale, parate execution, or based on an executorial title. This mechanism reflects good faith and trust between the creditor and debtor in a lending agreement. In line with Sharia principles, the murabahah financing contract also allows for collateral (rahn tasjily), granting the creditor the authority to execute the collateral object if the debtor defaults. This study aims to analyze the implementation of Mortgage Rights execution in Sharia financing, specifically under the murabahah contract. The method used is normative juridical research with a descriptive approach, employing statutory and case study analysis, and based on literature and relevant regulations. The results indicate that land rights can serve as collateral under Mortgage Rights in Sharia financing. This is confirmed in the Supreme Court Decision Number 179K/Pdt/2017, which serves as jurisprudential precedent for Decision Number 3/Yur/2018, where the collateral is executed through a Deed of Granting Mortgage Rights. The position of the creditor in a murabahah contract is equivalent to that in conventional financing, as confirmed in the DSN-MUI Fatwa, thus the creditor retains the right to execute even if the debtor defaults before the due date.

The Industrial Design Rights of the Koper Generator have been revoked based on the Decision of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court No. 78/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Desain Industri/2023/PN.Niaga,Jkt.Pst. However, even though the registration of the Koper Generator Industrial Design has been revoked, the rights holder continues to exercise his economic rights, thereby causing real losses to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for infringement of industrial design rights and a claim for compensation. The decision on the lawsuit basically rejected the Plaintiff's lawsuit, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have legal standing to file a lawsuit for infringement of industrial design rights and a claim for compensation.Based on the results of the study, it was found that legal protection for related parties or parties interested in industrial design rights is only related to filing a lawsuit for cancellation of industrial design rights, but cannot reach legal protection to file a lawsuit for infringement of industrial design rights and a claim for compensation; Legal considerations of the Panel of Judges of the Commercial Court in case No. 76/Pdt.Sus-Hki/Desain Industri/2023/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, is not appropriate, because it does not consider the fact of bad faith from the Defendants who continue to exercise their industrial design rights, even though their industrial design rights (Genset Koper) have been revoked by a court decision. The fact of direct losses suffered by the Plaintiff is not taken into consideration. This can make the judge's decision based on formalistic or procedural justice.

Default refers to a situation where one party to an agreement fails to fulfill or negligently performs its obligations as stipulated in the contract between the creditor and debtor. This study examines a case of default in an employment contract, as seen in the South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 276/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Jkt.Sel, where an employee unilaterally resigned before the contract’s expiration without fulfilling the agreed-upon obligations. The research aims to analyze the legal resolution of default and the judge’s considerations in ruling on the case. Using a normative juridical method with a case study approach, the study concludes that the court ruled the defendant in default and ordered compensation as specified in the employment agreement. The judge’s decision was based on the principles of freedom of contract, pacta sunt servanda, and good faith.