Publication Search

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.  

Industrial development in Indonesia has significantly contributed to national economic growth; however, it also poses potential risks of environmental pollution when corporate waste management is not conducted properly. Environmental pollution resulting from corporate waste activities may cause harm to surrounding communities, including health problems, ecosystem degradation, as well as material and immaterial losses. In this context, the class action mechanism serves as a relevant legal instrument to collectively advocate for the rights of affected communities. This study aims to analyze the implementation of the class action mechanism in environmental pollution cases based on Decision Number 29/Pdt.G/2023/PN.Skh and to evaluate its effectiveness in providing legal protection and restoring the rights of affected communities. This research employs normative legal research using statute approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. The findings indicate that the class action mechanism in the aforementioned decision fulfilled the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation as regulated under Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 1 of 2002. Procedurally, the class action proved effective in enhancing access to justice, ensuring judicial efficiency, and strengthening the protection of the constitutional right to a good and healthy environment. However, its substantive effectiveness remains dependent on the fulfillment of formal requirements, the quality of evidence presented, and the consistent application of environmental law principles by judges. Therefore, the class action mechanism constitutes an important instrument in environmental law enforcement, yet it requires consistent regulatory support and judicial practice to achieve optimal ecological justice.

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 development of technology in the era of globalization has brought significant changes in society, particularly through the emergence of the internet and social media such as WhatsApp, X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, and TikTok, which facilitate rapid information dissemination. This development has also given rise to a new profession, namely content creators, who produce and share content in the form of images, videos, or text for branding, professional purposes, or self-expression, often resorting to sensationalism to attract audience attention. On the other hand, the ease of access to social media has also triggered the spread of negative content, including pornography, as evidenced by Komdigi/Kominfo data showing millions of blocked negative content, with X being one of the dominant platforms. In Islamic perspective, anything that leads to adultery is prohibited as stated in QS. Al-Isra verse 32. A prominent case is Dea OnlyFans (Gusti Ayu Dewanti) who was arrested for distributing pornographic content through OnlyFans and Google Drive, charged under the Pornography Law and ITE Law, and found guilty in the Supreme Court Decision Number 2086 K/Pid.Sus/2023. This study discusses 1) How are the differences in judges' considerations at the District Court, High Court, and Cassation? 2) Can the Supreme Court judges' considerations provide a deterrent effect? This research uses a descriptive method with normative legal research based on literature study, using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials.

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 distortion between civil and criminal perspectives in the legal considerations (ratio decidendi) of Judex Juris in Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/Pid.Sus/2020. The decision lacks substantial criminal law considerations regarding the alleged corruption offense. Instead, the legal reasoning focuses on the fault or negligence of company directors, particularly the exception under Article 97 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, which embodies the Business Judgment Rule doctrine. Furthermore, these considerations are distorted by tort (onrechtmatige daad) as regulated in Article 1365 of the Civil Code juncto Article 138 paragraph (1) letter b of the Company Law. This research employs a legislative approach by analyzing various legal instruments, including the 1945 Constitution, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Limited Liability Company Law, State-Owned Enterprises Law, Judicial Power Law, Supreme Court Law, and the Corruption Eradication Laws. A conceptual approach is also utilized to examine theoretical concepts concerning corporate crime, directors' liabilities, state losses, tort, negligence from criminal and civil perspectives, business judgment rules, collective collegiality principles, and formal-material classification of legislation. The data comprises primary legal materials (legislation and court decisions) and secondary legal materials (legal literature and scientific journals). Analysis is conducted qualitatively by interpreting legal principles and their relevance to the court's considerations in the decision.