Publication Search

This study, entitled "Value Added Tax Fairness in Samarinda City," analyzes the fairness of the 11% VAT rate under Law No. 7 of 2021 using socio-legal methods. The results show that although the single 11% VAT rate meets the principles of legality and horizontal justice because it applies equally to all consumers, this policy is not entirely fair from a vertical justice perspective. The regressive nature of the consumption tax tends to place a greater burden on low-income households. Field findings reveal that MSMEs feel burdened because the rate does not take into account their economic capacity, coupled with a lack of understanding of the input and output tax credit mechanisms. Administrative complexity and minimal education from tax authorities contribute to low compliance rates. This study recommends the implementation of a more flexible tiered VAT rate, strengthening tax education, providing technical assistance, and simplifying reporting for MSMEs to improve compliance and create more equitable tax justice.  

This study examines the urgency of regulating the nominal limit of restitution in criminal case resolution through a restorative justice approach from the perspective of legal certainty. Restorative justice in Indonesia is governed by PERKAP No. 8 of 2021, PERJA No. 15 of 2020, and PERMA No. 1 of 2024. However, none of these regulations explicitly stipulate the nominal limit of compensation payable to victims. The absence of such a provision potentially leads to legal uncertainty and unfair practices, particularly in cases where resolution depends on the offender's ability to pay restitution. This research adopts a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches. The study aims to analyze the necessity of regulating nominal limits and how such limits should be determined under the prevailing legal framework. The findings reveal that the lack of clear restitution limits hampers the effective implementation of restorative justice, undermines fairness, and fails to adequately protect victims' rights. Legal regulation of compensation limits is necessary to ensure legal certainty, prevent abuse of power, and uphold justice in the victim recovery process. The study recommends that the state promptly establish clear restitution limits through revision of existing regulations or formulation of new ones, taking into account the principles of justice, the offender’s financial capacity, and the proportionality of the victim's losses.

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.

Infrastructure development as a National Strategic Project (NSP), such as the Yogyakarta-Bawen Toll Road, aims to improve public welfare but often faces a crucial issue in the land acquisition process, namely the determination of compensation. This research examines the application of substantive justice, which focuses not only on procedural compliance (procedural justice) but also on the fairness and adequacy of the final outcome for the entitled parties. Using a juridical-empirical approach, this article analyzes two main problems: first, how substantive justice is realized in the deliberation stage of determining compensation and what factors cause disagreement from residents. Second, how the overall stages of land acquisition affect the achievement of substantive justice and the obstacles encountered. The analysis shows that although the land acquisition stages have procedurally followed Law No. 2 of 2012, the achievement of substantive justice is still hindered. Factors such as the appraisal of compensation which is deemed not to cover non-physical losses, lack of transparency, and an imbalanced bargaining position in deliberations are the main causes of disagreement. Obstacles in the planning, socialization, and payment stages also impede the realization of a complete sense of justice for the affected communities. This study is expected to contribute to the development of land acquisition policies that prioritize fairness, transparency, and the protection of the rights of affected communities.

The application of a uniform pattern in center-periphery relations is frequently entrapped in a rigidity of uniformity that neglects the sociological and historical complexities of Indonesian society. This study aims to analyze the juridical construction of asymmetric decentralization within the framework of the Pancasila Rule of Law, as well as its implications for the management of diversity and national integration. Employing a normative legal research method with conceptual and statutory approaches, this study reveals that asymmetric decentralization is not merely an administrative deviation, but rather an imperative manifestation of substantive justice and the politics of recognition towards regional particularities. Although this policy has been effective in mitigating disintegration potential in special regions such as Aceh and Papua, its implementation leaves residual issues regarding sharp disparities in authority, potential legal fragmentation, and inter-regional jealousy. This study concludes that the sustainability of special autonomy necessitates a governance reconstruction that is not solely oriented towards temporary political accommodation, but must be coherently integrated with Pancasila values. The theoretical implications of this study underscore the necessity for harmonization between national legal supremacy and the flexibility of regional autonomy to foster sustainable social cohesion within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.

Obstetricians are often confronted with medical malpractice lawsuits, even when they have acted in accordance with professional standards, medical service standards, operational procedures, and medical ethics. Medical malpractice is generally defined as negligence or deviation from professional standards that results in serious harm to patients (Fiscina, 1999). This study aims to examine the application of the concept of medical malpractice along with its legal implications and to analyze the forms of legal protection available to obstetricians under Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health, viewed from the perspective of the principle of justice. Using a normative juridical method with descriptive-analytical specifications, the research employed a literature study and qualitative deductive analysis. The results indicate that legal protection for obstetricians consists of two dimensions: preventive and repressive. Preventive protection includes the implementation of informed consent, proper medical records, and compliance with standard operating procedures. Repressive protection involves legal defense mechanisms and institutional or professional organizational support. However, this protection remains suboptimal, as the decisions of the Indonesian Medical Disciplinary Board (MKDKI) are not always taken into account by the courts (Rahman, 2022). From the perspective of Rawls’ principle of justice, protection for obstetricians should ensure a balanced recognition of both patients’ and doctors’ rights, thereby promoting fairness and equitable justice for all parties (Rawls, 1971).

The imposition of criminal penalties must be based on careful legal consideration and in accordance with the principle of Negatief Wettelijk, which is enshrined in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). This principle requires that judges may only impose criminal penalties if there are at least two valid pieces of evidence that can fully explain the occurrence of the criminal act and the involvement of the defendant. In the case of the murder of Wayan Mirna Salihin, Jesica Kumala Wongso was designated as a suspect and sentenced by the prosecutor and judge. However, this designation sparked controversy because it did not meet the requirement of two valid pieces of evidence as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. The decision against Jesica was deemed not to be based on complete and objective evidence, and therefore could be considered legally flawed when viewed from the principle of Negatief Wettelijk. Therefore, it is important for the criminal justice system to uphold the principles of legality and caution when rendering decisions.

This study aims to analyze Legal Protection and Gender Justice for Women in the Practice of Siri Polygamy: Analysis of the Principles of Islamic Civil Law. The practice of polygamy in Indonesia often causes injustice for women, who do not receive adequate legal protection. This study analyzes the relationship between the principles of Islamic civil law and the reality faced by women in the practice of siri polygamy. Although Islamic law emphasizes justice and protection of women's rights, many women are trapped in situations of injustice due to a lack of understanding of the law and social stigma. This study uses a normative juridical method to explore the truth between legal norms and practices in the field. The results of the study indicate that minimal social support, lack of understanding of legal rights, and social stigma contribute to the injustice experienced by women. To improve legal protection and gender justice, it is recommended that there be recognition and registration of siri polygamous marriages, strengthening of legal regulations, assistance for women, and education and socialization regarding legal rights. With these steps, it is hoped that women's rights in the practice of siri polygamy can be fulfilled fairly within the framework of Islamic law and state law.  

The Child Protection Law affirms that the state guarantees children's rights to “protection from violence” as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution. This paper examines child abuse within the framework of Indonesian positive law using a normative approach and legal philosophy (positivism). The focus of the analysis is to what extent legal norms (such as the Child Protection Law, the Criminal Code, the Domestic Violence Law, etc.) align with the values of justice and children's human rights. A normative approach is used to analyze the laws and legal literature, while the philosophical approach, particularly the positivist ideas of Hans Kelsen and H.L.A. Hart, is employed to understand the relationship between legal norms and the concept of justice. The analysis reveals that although child protection regulations exist, their implementation on the ground tends to be legalistic, often neglecting humanitarian and justice elements. This study emphasizes the need for alignment between legal norms and substantive justice and the protection of children's human rights. The implication of this research is the need for a legal policy that is more responsive to children's rights and justice.

Banyaknya orang yang terlibat dalam kasus narkoba dan terus meningkatnya kejahatan tersebut memerlukan perhatian yang serius dan komitmen bersama untuk  mencegah  dan  menghapusnya.  Salah  satu  upaya  penanggulangan penyalahgunaan narkotika, antara lain dilakukan dengan menggunakan sanksi pidana berupa pidana penjara. Pada kenyataannya, sanksi pidana penjara bagi pengguna narkotika tidak cukup efektif, terbukti jumlah pengguna narkotika semakin  meningkat.  Menurut  Suriadi  Gunawan,  peraturan  perundangan yang  mengkriminalisasi  pecandu  narkotika  perlu  ditinjau  kembali  karena tidak  realistis,  contohnya,  dengan  mengkriminalisasikan  pecandu  terbukti tidak menurunkan kasus narkotika. Di Indonesia saat ini ada sekitar 1,5 juta pengguna narkotika, yang jika diproses hukum, penjara akan penuh, padahal jumlah kasus tidak menurun.