Publication Search

Penelitian ini mengkaji pertanggungjawaban hukum Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (PPAT) dalam kasus pemalsuan dokumen jual beli tanah berdasarkan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat Nomor 248/Pid.B/2022/PN.Jkt.Brt. Penelitian dilatarbelakangi oleh meningkatnya penyalahgunaan kewenangan oleh PPAT yang berpotensi merugikan pemegang hak atas tanah serta mengganggu kepastian hukum dan kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap sistem pertanahan. Permasalahan penelitian meliputi: (1) kronologi dan konstruksi hukum kasus pemalsuan dokumen jual beli tanah; (2) pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam memutus perkara; dan (3) bentuk pertanggungjawaban pidana PPAT dalam kasus tersebut. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi deskriptif-analitis melalui studi kepustakaan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan, putusan pengadilan, serta doktrin hukum yang relevan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tindakan PPAT yang membuat Akta Jual Beli berdasarkan surat kuasa palsu tanpa kehadiran dan persetujuan pemilik sah telah memenuhi unsur tindak pidana pemalsuan akta otentik sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 264 ayat (1) jo. Pasal 55 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP. Pertimbangan hakim didasarkan pada asas legalitas, pembuktian, persamaan di hadapan hukum, serta keseimbangan antara kepastian hukum, keadilan, dan kemanfaatan hukum. Putusan pidana penjara dan denda yang dijatuhkan mencerminkan akuntabilitas pejabat publik atas penyalahgunaan kewenangan jabatan. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa pertanggungjawaban PPAT mencakup aspek pidana, perdata, dan administratif. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan penguatan sistem pengawasan, penegakan kode etik profesi, serta peningkatan integritas dan profesionalitas PPAT guna mewujudkan tertib hukum dalam administrasi pertanahan.

This research is prompted by legal complications within civil procedural law, specifically regarding the failure of judges to identify formal defects in special powers of attorney during the preliminary stages of trial. The central focus of this study examines Decision Number 14/Pdt.G/2025/PN Kba, in which a lawsuit was declared inadmissible (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard) only after a seven-month litigation process that had already progressed through evidentiary hearings and local inspections. The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of the dominus litis principle in empowering judges to provide procedural guidance for lawsuit amendments, while testing its alignment with the principles of simple, fast, and low-cost justice. Employing a normative legal research method with statutory and case-based approaches, the legal materials are analyzed qualitatively using the legal syllogism technique. The findings indicate that the application of the dominus litis principle in the a quo case remains ineffective due to the judges' passive and formalistic tendencies. Such an approach neglects the ex-officio authority mandated under Articles 119 and 132 of the HIR. This ineffectiveness results in significant judicial inefficiency, causing undue loss of time and financial resources for justice seekers. Consequently, this study recommends strengthening rigorous initial screening mechanisms by the panel of judges at the first hearing. This preventive measure is essential to curb the waste of judicial resources and ensure the realization of substantial justice for all disputing parties.

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 enforcement of civil court judgments in Indonesia frequently encounters obstacles due to parties’ bad faith conduct, such as covert asset transfers or groundless resistance to execution. Although the principle of good faith is a foundational tenet in civil law, its application in the enforcement phase remains inconsistent. This study examines the concept and legal status of the good faith principle in Indonesian positive law concerning civil judgment enforcement and analyzes the legal consequences of its violation. A normative juridical method is employed, utilizing library-based research on primary and secondary legal sources. The findings reveal that while good faith is recognized in substantive civil law, it has not been explicitly incorporated into civil procedural law. Consequently, bad faith actions during enforcement rarely incur clear procedural sanctions. Theoretically, this underscores the need to integrate ethical principles into civil procedure doctrine; practically, it calls for regulatory reforms to embed good faith as a binding procedural obligation in judgment enforcement.