Publication Search

This study examines the strengthening of the ultimum remedium principle in handling corporate crimes as part of a more proportional, efficient, and equitable criminal justice system reform. The ultimum remedium principle views criminal law as a last resort, used after other legal mechanisms, such as administrative resolution, mediation, or administrative sanctions, are deemed inadequate. The application of this principle becomes increasingly important in the corporate context to prevent the negative impact of repressive punishment on business entities that play a strategic role in the national economy. The significant impact of corporations on society and the economy necessitates a more careful and prudent approach to handling corporate crimes. This study uses a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case study approaches. In analyzing the application of the ultimum remedium principle, this study identifies that although this principle has been incorporated into several laws and regulations, its implementation remains weak. Factors contributing to this include limited understanding of the principle among law enforcement officials, suboptimal technical guidelines regarding the application of the ultimum remedium principle, and public pressure that tends to encourage a repressive approach in handling corporate crimes. Therefore, this study recommends strengthening regulations, increasing the capacity of law enforcement officials, and developing integrated guidelines to ensure the consistent and effective application of the ultimum remedium principle in handling corporate crimes. The application of this principle is also in line with the restorative justice approach, which aims to provide more humane and corrective punishment and create sustainable change for corporations and society.  

This study compares the recovery systems for victims of psychosocial violence and traffic accidents from the perspective of Unlawful Acts (PMH) in Indonesia and Malaysia. Using library research, this study analyzes the legal framework, institutions, and social and psychological approaches used by both countries to support the victim recovery process. In Indonesia, the victim recovery system is still oriented towards material compensation and administrative settlements, with limited recognition of immaterial losses such as trauma and psychological disorders. In contrast, Malaysia has developed a victim-centered justice approach that positions victims as the subject of recovery, through regulations such as the Domestic Violence Act 1994 (Amendment 2017), the Road Transport Act 1987, and compensation mechanisms through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Malaysia (MIB) and the Victim Compensation Fund. This approach comprehensively integrates legal, social, and psychological recovery, including free counseling services through the One Stop Crisis Center (OSCC) and Talian Kasih 15999. The study's findings indicate that Malaysia has moved toward a holistic human recovery paradigm, while Indonesia still needs to strengthen its victim recovery system by addressing the psychological and social dimensions to align with the principles of restorative justice.

This study examines The Legal Position of the Peace Deed as a Means of Dispute Resolution for Parties Outside the Court, focusing on the notary’s authority and the legal strength of the peace deed compared to court decisions. Using a normative juridical method, this research emphasizes an analysis of positive legal provisions such as the Indonesian Civil Code, the Notary Law, and the Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. The findings indicate that notaries possess legal authority to draft peace deeds as authentic instruments ensuring legal certainty and justice for disputing parties. A peace deed made before a notary holds the same legal force as a court decision with permanent legal effect (inkracht van gewijsde) and may serve as an executorial title when issued in the form of a grosse acte. Thus, the notarial peace deed functions as an effective, efficient, and equitable legal instrument for resolving disputes, reinforcing the principles of simplicity, speed, and low cost within the national legal system.

The renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) through the Draft Law (RUU) KUHAP opens up space for in-depth philosophical reflection on the relationship between law, justice, and humanity. This article examines the challenges of harmonizing the principle of due process of law, which emphasizes respect for individual rights in every legal process, with the criminal justice system, which is oriented towards efficiency and the purpose of punishment. This harmony is not only a technical and normative matter, but also a matter of shared understanding of what is meant by justice in the context of a more humane and human rights-based criminal justice system. Using a philosophical legal perspective, this article explores the potential for conflict and convergence between the two principles, and seeks common ground within the framework of Pancasila legal values ​​and Islamic law that prioritize humanity, substantive justice, and a balance between individual rights and the public interest. The renewal of the RUU KUHAP, in this context, is not merely a structural change, but a journey towards a legal system that guarantees the depth of justice, which is not only seen from a procedural perspective, but also from the moral and social essence of the law itself.