Publication Search

The legal profession plays a vital role in the judicial system to ensure the principle of equality before the law as well as fair and accountable legal proceedings. In accordance with Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, an advocate is an autonomous, independent, and accountable legal professional who is granted immunity as stipulated in Articles 14, 15, and 16, which provide protection from civil and criminal claims when acting in good faith while performing their duties. However, in practice, the scope of this immunity often leads to differing interpretations, particularly regarding the parameters of “good faith” and the scope of “professional duties,” which can result in the criminalization of lawyers. This is evident in the case of Hendra Sianipar, where a lawyer’s actions in exercising legal authority were instead subject to criminal prosecution. This study aims to examine the limits of attorney immunity and explore the potential for criminalization of this profession using a normative legal approach combined with a legal utility analysis. The findings of this study indicate that attorney immunity is not absolute but is limited by good faith, compliance with the law, and professional ethics, thus requiring clearer and more balanced clarification of these limits.

The provision of grants by local governments to vertical agencies of the central government often raises legal tensions over local fiscal autonomy. This study aims to examine the implications of such grant disbursements through the lens of the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB) and the principles of good financial governance. Employing a normative legal research method, this study analyzes the coherence between the discretionary powers of regional heads and the standards of clean governance. The research findings indicate that grant policies for central government agencies often disregard the principles of prudence and utility, with local budget allocations instead used to fund matters constitutionally the responsibility of the central government (the State Budget). This practice has the potential to become a source of abuse of authority (detournement de pouvoir) if not grounded in objective parameters of local public needs. This study concludes that evaluating grant policies through the AUPB framework, particularly regarding transparency, accountability, and participation, is crucial to preventing local financial subordination. More restrictive regulatory reforms are needed to ensure that grant expenditures remain focused on improving the quality of public services and community welfare at the local level without compromising national fiscal stability.

The doctrine of open legal policy is a jurisprudential construction of the Constitutional Court that provides space for lawmakers to formulate norms as long as they do not contradict the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Nevertheless, the application of this doctrine in the practice of law testing has raised various constitutional problems, particularly concerning the limits of authority between legislators and the Constitutional Court, as well as the protection of citizens' constitutional rights. This research aims to analyze the concept and construction of open legal policy within the Indonesian constitutional system and to formulate the constitutional limits of its application in Constitutional Court decisions. This research is a normative legal study with an approach based on legislation, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. The legal materials used include the 1945 Constitution, relevant legislation, and pertinent Constitutional Court decisions. The research results indicate that open legal policy cannot be interpreted as absolute freedom for lawmakers, but must be limited by the principle of constitutional supremacy, protection of constitutional rights, and the principle of proportionality as reflected in Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The ambiguity of the parameters for applying this doctrine has the potential to cause inconsistencies in rulings and disrupt legal certainty. Therefore, a more precise and consistent formulation of constitutional limits is necessary to maintain the balance between representative democracy and constitutional oversight.