Publication Search

This research analyzes the application of the equality before the law principle in handling narcotics cases by the Legal Aid Institute (LBH) Legundi Surabaya. The principle of equality before the law is a fundamental principle guaranteed in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, yet its implementation in narcotics law enforcement still faces various challenges. This study employs a normative juridical method with a qualitative approach to examine LBH Legundi's strategies in ensuring clients fully obtain their constitutional rights. The findings reveal that although LBH Legundi has implemented various strategies such as detailed examination of arrest procedures, optimization of legal instruments, and efforts for detention suspension, the application of the equality before the law principle remains hindered by several factors. The main challenges include strong social stigma against narcotics offenders, limited resources of legal aid institutions, disparities in judicial decisions, structural barriers in accessing justice, weak supervision systems, minimal systemic support from the state, and a law enforcement mindset that remains punitive rather than rehabilitative. This condition creates a significant gap between suspects from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those from affluent backgrounds, which contradicts the spirit of substantive justice. The study concludes that realizing the principle of equality before the law requires comprehensive reform touching structural, cultural, and systemic aspects of Indonesia's criminal justice system.  

This research explores the legal protection of domestic doctors in Indonesia in response to the increasing utilization of foreign doctors (FDs) within the framework of knowledge transfer aimed at improving healthcare services. With the enactment of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health, the Indonesian government provides space for foreign doctors to practice with simplified licensing procedures, raising legal concerns regarding legal certainty, professional equality, and the rights of patients to clear and honest communication. This study uses normative juridical methods with statutory and conceptual approaches to analyze the legal framework surrounding this issue. The findings show that the implementation of simplified requirements for foreign doctors potentially threatens the professional standing of local doctors and risks violating patient rights. Recommendations include strengthening legal instruments and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that knowledge transfer objectives are met without compromising legal protection and healthcare quality. The legal framework provided by Law No. 17 of 2023 allows foreign doctors to practice with more straightforward licensing processes, but it raises concerns regarding the adequacy of regulatory oversight. Local doctors fear that the simplified procedures for foreign doctors may not guarantee the same level of competency, accountability, and ethical standards. Furthermore, the presence of foreign doctors could lead to a disparity in professional treatment and recognition, undermining the integrity of the medical profession in Indonesia. This study explores how these legal issues intersect with the broader goals of patient protection, ensuring that all medical practitioners, regardless of nationality, adhere to the highest standards of care and ethical conduct. The role of patient rights in this context is critical, as patients must receive clear and honest communication about the qualifications of the doctors treating them, ensuring their right to informed consent is upheld.

The scope of pretrial authority is regulated under Article 77 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), with an extension of authority introduced through the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014. The evidentiary process in pretrial proceedings is governed by Article 2 paragraphs (2) and (4) of the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2016 concerning the Prohibition of Judicial Review of Pretrial Decisions. However, in practice, petitions for pretrial often address matters beyond this prescribed authority. Moreover, there remains a disparity in judicial reasoning across different judges, particularly with respect to the evaluation of evidence in the determination of a suspect.The legal issues examined in this study are: (1) whether the expansion of the pretrial authority’s scope has led to multiple interpretations among law enforcement officers, and (2) how the evidentiary process in pretrial proceedings aligns with the principle of legal certainty. This thesis employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The findings of this thesis reveal that the expansion of pretrial authority has indeed created multiple interpretations among law enforcement officials, owing to inconsistencies in pretrial decisions that result from judicial discretion. Furthermore, the evidentiary process in pretrial proceedings ought to be limited to the formal aspects of investigative or prosecutorial actions. Nevertheless, certain pretrial rulings have considered the substance and quality of evidence, and even assessed the conduct of the suspect. Such practices undermine legal certainty for justice seekers. Therefore, the Supreme Court should issue more concrete regulations concerning the scope of pretrial and the evidentiary standards applicable in pretrial proceedings.