Publication Search

This study examines the Hybrid Model of Restorative Justice from a comparative perspective between Civil Law and Common Law systems as a reflection of the transformation of criminal law policy. The Civil Law system, rooted in legal positivism, emphasizes formal legal certainty through codification, whereas the Common Law system allows broader judicial discretion and judge-made law. These differing paradigms significantly influence the development and implementation of restorative justice. Indonesia, as a Civil Law country, has demonstrated a shift toward a hybrid legal policy by incorporating Common Law values into its criminal justice reforms, particularly through the National Criminal Code. This research employs a normative juridical method using conceptual, statutory, and comparative law approaches. The findings indicate that the Hybrid Model of Restorative Justice represents a strategic legal policy choice aimed at harmonizing legal certainty and substantive justice in accordance with the Pancasila legal ideals.

The purpose of this study is to examine the implementation of employment agreements as one of the means of providing legal protection for workers’ rights. The research method employed in this study is normative juridical, utilizing primary and secondary legal materials obtained through the analysis of statutory regulations, legal scholars’ opinions, as well as books and journals relevant to the subject under study. The results of the study indicate that employment agreements, as a form of preventive legal protection for workers’ rights, are a consequence of the application of the welfare state concept, thereby requiring the state to intervene in employment relationships arising from such agreements. This form of intervention can be observed in Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower. The provisions contained in this law, particularly Article 54 paragraph (1) of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower, constitute a form of preventive legal protection, especially in points (e) and (f), as they regulate economic rights as well as the rights and obligations of workers. These provisions provide protection and serve as a form of legal certainty that safeguards workers from the beginning of their employment. The obstacles encountered in the implementation of employment agreements as a preventive means of protecting workers’ rights are divided into three factors: regulatory factors, legal culture factors, and legal structure factors.

The establishment of national territorial boundaries is a strategic priority to safeguard sovereignty, maintain security stability, and strengthen bilateral relations between Indonesia and Malaysia as well as Timor-Leste. As of 2024, there remain nine Outstanding Boundary Problems (OBP) with Malaysia and two unresolved segments with Timor-Leste. These issues stem from the continued relevance of outdated colonial agreements, limited diplomatic capacity, weak inter-agency coordination, and minimal support from modern surveying technology. Based on an analysis of four policy alternatives using the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, and long-term impact, the Strengthening of Intensive Bilateral Diplomacy has been identified as the priority policy. Implementation is directed to the Badan Nasional Pengelola Perbatasan (BNPP) as the main coordinator, supported by regulatory frameworks, diplomatic resources, and cross-ministerial/institutional coordination. Through this strategy, the resolution of pending boundary segments can be accelerated, legal certainty over national territory can be strengthened, security stability in border areas can be improved, and bilateral relations can become closer. Furthermore, Indonesia needs to strengthen diplomatic strategies, leverage technology, and enhance inter-agency coordination to accelerate the resolution of national border disputes. This policy directly contributes to achieving territorial sovereignty and sustainable development toward Indonesia Vision 2045.

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.

This research is grounded in the enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the National Criminal Code, which raises normative questions regarding the legal status of gratification within Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework. The study aims to analyze the normative position of gratification following criminal law codification and to assess its implications for evidentiary mechanisms under the Anti-Corruption Law. Employing a normative legal research method, this study applies statutory and conceptual approaches through comprehensive literature review of primary and secondary legal sources. The findings indicate that gratification remains regulated under the Anti-Corruption Law as lex specialis and is not nullified by the National Criminal Code. The reversal of the burden of proof mechanism continues to apply, although its interpretation must align with fundamental criminal law principles such as culpability and proportionality. The study concludes that systematic harmonization between both legal regimes is essential to ensure legal certainty and strengthen anti-corruption enforcement.

This study examines the comparison between litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in resolving business conflicts in Indonesia. The increasingly complex nature of business activities has led to a variety of conflicts, such as breach of contract, share ownership disputes, and payment issues, which require efficient resolution methods that provide legal certainty. This study aims to explore the characteristics, procedures, advantages, and disadvantages of dispute resolution through litigation and ADR, which include negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. The method applied is normative juridical, drawing on legislation, legal doctrine, and relevant literature. The research findings indicate that litigation offers stronger legal certainty through binding court decisions and organized procedures, but is often time-consuming, expensive, and produces win-lose outcomes. On the other hand, ADR offers flexibility, confidentiality, efficiency, and the opportunity to reach mutually beneficial solutions, although in some situations it requires court confirmation for enforcement. Therefore, the choice of dispute resolution method needs to be adjusted to the nature of the conflict, the relationship between the parties, and the need for legal certainty.

The rapid development of digital technology has significantly transformed financial transaction systems, including the use of securities. Conventional securities, which traditionally function as instruments of payment, evidence, and transfer of rights, face various challenges such as document forgery, loss, and administrative inefficiency. These conditions have encouraged the digitalization of securities, requiring adjustments within the Indonesian legal framework. This study aims to analyze the transformation of securities from conventional forms to digital formats within the perspective of Indonesian law and to assess the adequacy of existing regulations in addressing such developments. The research employs a normative juridical approach by examining primary legal materials in the form of statutory regulations and secondary legal materials consisting of legal literature and previous studies. The findings indicate that although electronic documents have been legally recognized as valid evidence, there is no specific and comprehensive regulation governing digital securities. Consequently, legal uncertainty remains regarding the transfer of rights, evidentiary strength, and legal protection for holders of digital securities. This study is expected to contribute conceptually to the development of adaptive legal regulations that ensure legal certainty and protection in the context of modern digital transactions.

General elections constitute a fundamental pillar of Indonesia’s democratic system, functioning as a mechanism for the exercise of popular sovereignty and the protection of citizens’ voting rights. During the 2024 Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD) election in Tarakan City, the Badan Pengawas Pemilu Kota Tarakan recorded twelve reports of alleged administrative violations throughout the electoral stages, including during the national vote recapitulation process. Of these reports, three allegations were proven, involving violations related to the Additional Voter List, the Special Voter List, and the eligibility requirements of candidates running for the Tarakan City DPRD in 2024. Essentially, election law enforcement serves as a safeguard to ensure fairness, legal certainty, and the protection of citizens’ constitutional right to vote. This study aims to examine the implementation of legal enforcement mechanisms against administrative violations in the 2024 Tarakan City DPRD election. A socio-legal research approach was employed to analyze both normative regulations and their practical application. Referring to Peraturan Bawaslu Nomor 8 Tahun 2022 concerning the Settlement of Administrative Violations of General Elections, the findings indicate that the Tarakan City Bawaslu holds authority in adjudicating and imposing sanctions on proven violations. As a result, one candidate, Erick Hendrawan Septian Putra, was disqualified from Electoral District 1. Furthermore, sanctions were imposed on the chairpersons and members of Polling Station 88 in Karang Anyar and Polling Station 2 in Pamusian for failing to carry out their duties as voting organizing groups in the election and subsequent processes.

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.

Criminal acts of assault against children constitute a serious violation of human rights that requires optimal legal protection by the state. As legal subjects, children are entitled to security, protection from violence, and guarantees for proper growth and development, as mandated by Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and relevant child protection legislation. This study aims to conduct a juridical analysis of the legal considerations applied by judges in Decision Number 83/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Kot concerning the criminal offense of assault committed against a child, as well as to assess their conformity with criminal law principles, child protection law, and the objectives of sentencing. This research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, supported by primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The findings reveal that although the legal basis applied refers to Law Number 35 of 2014 on Child Protection, the judicial considerations have not been comprehensively formulated, as they insufficiently incorporate sociological, criminological, and child-centered protection perspectives. Consequently, the sentence imposed is relatively lenient and fails to fully reflect the objectives of punishment, particularly deterrence and sustainable protection for child victims. Therefore, strengthening the quality of judicial reasoning and ensuring the optimal application of relevant legal provisions are essential to achieve legal certainty, justice, and effective protection for children as victims of violent crimes.

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.

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.

The reform of Indonesia’s criminal law through Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) marks a fundamental shift in the national criminal justice system, particularly through the formal recognition of the living law as law that lives within society. This article analyzes the correlation between living law and the principle of legality within the context of national criminal law reform. The study employs a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to examine how the 2023 Criminal Code seeks to balance legal certainty with substantive justice. The findings indicate that the regulation of the principle of legality in Article 1 of the KUHP remains the primary foundation for ensuring the protection of individual rights and preventing arbitrary state actions. However, the recognition of living law under Article 2 of the KUHP expands the sources of criminal law beyond written statutes to include social values living within the community, insofar as they are consistent with Pancasila, general legal principles, and human rights. The relationship between the principle of legality and living law in the 2023 KUHP is not antagonistic but rather complementary and harmonious. Living law enriches the legality principle substantively through moral and social justice dimensions, while the legality principle serves as a normative safeguard to maintain legal certainty and prevent the abuse of power. Therefore, the integration of both principles reflects a new paradigm of Indonesian criminal law that is pluralistic, just, and civilized, reaffirming the nation’s legal politics grounded in Pancasila values and the principles of a democratic rule of law.

This study aims to analyze the regulation and implementation of the authority to test laws and regulations (judicial review) in the Indonesian state system based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This study applies a normative juridical method using three main approaches, namely the statute approach, the conceptual approach, and the historical approach. The legal data collected includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which are then reviewed through qualitative analysis. The results of the study show that normatively the division of judicial review authority between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court has been expressly regulated in Article 24A paragraph (1) and Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Supreme Court is given the authority to test regulations under the law against the law, and the Constitutional Court is given the authority to test laws against the 1945 Constitution. This division of authority is a manifestation of the principle of separation of powers and the mechanism of checks and balances after the third amendment to the 1945 Constitution. However, in practice, this two-roof judicial review system tends to give rise to conceptual and practical problems, such as overlapping authority and differences in decisions between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court which have the potential to create legal uncertainty and reduce public trust in the judicial institution. Therefore, it is necessary to reorganize the authority of judicial review by strengthening coordination between institutions or unifying the authority of judicial review which is centered on one institution only in order to guarantee legal certainty, harmonization of norms, and supremacy of the constitution in the Indonesian state system.  

This study analyzes the juridical issues related to the implementation of criminal sanctions below the statutory minimum, as reflected in Cassation Decision Number 7853/K/Pid.Sus/2024. The focus of this research centers on the tension between the rigid provisions of Article 111 paragraph (1) of Law No. 35 of 2009 concerning narcotics and the reality of judicial practice, which often deviates from these provisions. This phenomenon raises debates regarding the extent to which the principle of legality can be compromised in pursuit of justice without undermining the pillar of legal certainty within Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Using a normative legal research method with a statutory and case study approach, this study qualitatively analyzes judges’ considerations. The findings indicate that, although the policy of imposing sentences below the minimum carries the risk of creating legal uncertainty, the Supreme Court in this case reinterpreted the principle of legality. Judges tend to prioritize proportionality and substantive justice to avoid purely mechanical punishment. The study concludes that, while judicial discretion represents a concrete expression of judicial independence, such practice requires clearer normative parameters. Without explicit regulation, deviations from the statutory minimum risk widening disparities in judicial decisions. Therefore, standardized sentencing guidelines are necessary to preserve legal integrity while maintaining a sense of justice for defendants.

The digital transformation of Indonesia’s judicial system through the implementation of e-court represents a judicial reform aimed at achieving a simple, fast, and low-cost legal process. However, the digitization of civil case proceedings raises concerns regarding legal certainty, particularly in the application of the principle of audi et alteram partem as a fundamental doctrine ensuring equal opportunity for parties to be heard. This study aims to analyze the normative regulation of the audi et alteram partem principle in Indonesian civil procedural law, examine its implementation within the e-court system, and assess whether its application provides adequate legal certainty for litigants. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches. Legal materials consist of statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant academic journals. The findings indicate that normatively, the e-court system accommodates the right to be heard through electronic case registration, summons, hearings, and submission of documents. Nevertheless, technical obstacles, disparities in digital literacy, and potential deficiencies in electronic notification mechanisms may affect the effective protection of parties’ rights. It is concluded that the implementation of the audi et alteram partem principle in e-court has a sufficient legal foundation, yet requires further technical and regulatory strengthening to ensure optimal legal certainty.

The crime of receiving stolen goods, as regulated in Article 480 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), is an offence that plays a crucial role in the continuation of the principal crime, particularly theft. Receivers provide a market for stolen goods, thereby indirectly encouraging perpetrators to continue their actions. This article aims to analyse the implementation of Article 480 of the KUHP in judicial practice, with a focus on proving the element of ‘knowing or reasonably suspecting’ that the goods purchased were obtained through criminal activity. This study uses a qualitative method with a case study approach through direct observation of a trial at the M. District Court. The observations show that the panel of judges successfully proved the defendant's guilt as a fence through a series of trial facts, such as the unreasonable purchase price, consistent testimony from the perpetrator of the theft, and the defendant's own admission that he had been suspicious. The judge's decision, which was lighter than the prosecutor's demands, also reflected considerations of substantive justice and humanity in addition to legal certainty. This study concludes that the effective enforcement of Article 480 of the Criminal Code in court plays an important role in breaking the chain of crime and providing a deterrent effect not only for the main perpetrators but also for those who participate in enjoying the proceeds of crime.

This study aims to examine the judge's considerations in rendering decisions in aggravated theft cases at the Medan District Court, with an emphasis on the balance between legal and non-legal aspects in realizing substantive justice. The issue of disparate sentencing that frequently arises is the main background of this study. The methods used are an integrated normative legal approach and an empirical legal approach. The normative approach is used to examine the provisions of Article 363 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) and the legal principles that govern the judge's considerations, while the empirical approach is carried out through direct observation of the trial process and analysis of the judge's decision. The results of the study indicate that the judge in case Number 1110/Pid. B/2025/PN Medan not only complied with legal aspects such as fulfilling the elements of the crime, evidence, and the application of the principle of legality, but also considered non-legal aspects such as the socio-economic conditions, age, and motives of the defendant. These considerations demonstrate the application of the principles of criminal individualization and proportional justice. In addition, the judge also considered moral values ​​and social benefits in his decision, which is in line with Gustav Radbruch's theory of three basic legal values: justice, legal certainty, and utility. This study concludes that the thinking patterns of judges at the Medan District Court reflect a shift toward substantive and restorative justice paradigms. It is recommended that the Supreme Court strengthen integrated sentencing guidelines to avoid disparities in sentencing and encourage the adoption of a rehabilitative approach for offenders with low economic motivations.

This study examines the juridical aspects of guardianship applications by parents to obtain permission to sell a minor’s inherited land and analyzes the judicial considerations in Decision Number 199/Pdt.P/2025/PN Blt. The research employs an empirical juridical method with a sociological legal approach. Primary data were collected through interviews and case documents at the Blitar District Court, while secondary data consist of statutes, doctrine, and related literature. Qualitative-descriptive analysis was applied to interpret the findings. The study reveals that the guardianship application process involves both administrative and judicial stages. Judges scrutinize material evidence and the probity of sale objectives, weighing important principles such as utility, legal certainty, fairness, and justice. Guardians are granted limited authority to sell a minor’s property only if it can be proven to be in the child's best interest and legal protections are assured. Recommendations include strengthening post-decision monitoring, enhancing legal outreach, improving procedural transparency, and ensuring comprehensive implementation.

This study is motivated by the increasing complexity of financing coordination between the National Health Insurance (BPJS Kesehatan) and supplementary health insurance providers under the Coordination of Benefits (KAPJ) scheme, which creates potential claim disputes and administrative risks for hospitals. Although Minister of Health Decree No. HK.01.07/MENKES/1117/2025 regulates payment allocation and membership verification mechanisms, it does not explicitly recognize pre-admission confirmation as a preventive legal protection instrument. This research aims to analyze the normative position of pre-admission confirmation within the KAPJ framework, conceptualize it as a preventive legal protection mechanism, and formulate a proportional implementation model. The study employs a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches through literature review of relevant regulations and scholarly works. The findings indicate that pre-admission confirmation possesses implicit normative legitimacy through membership verification obligations and system integration requirements, and functions as a risk allocation mechanism that clarifies payment responsibilities prior to service delivery. Its implementation enhances legal certainty, reduces fraud potential, and minimizes claim disputes, provided that access to emergency medical services remains guaranteed.