Publication Search

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.

The Aceh Sharia Court is a special judicial institution formed based on the specifics of Aceh as regulated in the Aceh Government Law. The existence of the Aceh Sharia Court has juridical consequences for the exercise of judicial power which was previously exercised by the Religious Courts. This research aims to analyze the position of the Aceh Sharia Court in the national justice system and examine its power in replacing the authority of the Religious Courts in handling cases related to Islamic law. The research method used is normative legal research. The research results show that the Aceh Sharia Court has an equal position to the Religious Court in the judicial power structure, but has broader authority because it covers Islamic civil cases, sharia criminal (jinayat), and sharia procedural law. This transfer of authority does not eliminate the existence of the Religious Courts nationally, but creates a special justice system that only applies in the Aceh region. The position of the Aceh Sharia Court strengthens the implementation of Islamic law within the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and remains under the guidance of the Supreme Court.

This study aims to analyze the legal accountability of three judges of the Surabaya District Court who were proven to have been involved in bribery practices during the examination process of a case that resulted in the acquittal of Gregorius Ronald Tannur, the son of Edward Tannur, a former member of the Indonesian House of Representatives from the National Awakening Party (PKB). The study focuses on identifying the forms of legal responsibility that may be imposed on judges who receive bribes, as well as examining the abuse of judicial authority that influenced the issuance of the court decision. This research employs a normative juridical method using a statutory and case approach, through an analysis of Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, Decision of the Surabaya District Court Number 454/Pid.B/2024/PN SBY, and the Joint Decree of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission of 2009 concerning the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judicial Conduct. The findings indicate that judges proven to have accepted bribes may be subject to criminal sanctions in the form of imprisonment and/or fines, ethical sanctions imposed by the Judicial Commission, as well as administrative sanctions in the form of dishonorable dismissal, and that court decisions rendered by judges involved in bribery may be challenged through available legal remedies. This study underscores the importance of strengthening internal and external oversight mechanisms and enhancing transparency in judicial proceedings to maintain and restore public trust in the judiciary.

In accordance with Article 25 paragraph (2) of the Law on Judicial Power, the general judiciary is one part of the judicial power that has the authority to examine, adjudicate, and issue decisions in criminal and civil cases in accordance with the applicable regulations. In civil trial proceedings at the district court, there are three stages: the preliminary stage, the determination stage, and the execution stage. In civil justice, there is an effort to resolve disputes outside of trial, namely mediation, and in administrative court proceedings, there is an effort to resolve disputes outside the court, namely administrative efforts. Mediation is an effort to resolve conflicts through deliberation with the assistance of a neutral third party, known as a mediator, to reach an agreement that can be accepted by both parties. This administrative effort is a resolution process carried out internally within an agency between the government and the party filing an objection to a state administrative decision before the dispute is brought to court. The purpose of this study is to understand the differences in non-litigation efforts between civil courts and state administrative courts. The research method is normative, using a statutory approach that emphasizes the analysis of regulations related to the main discussion of this study. In civil courts, mediation aims and focuses more on efficiency, which benefits both parties and, in turn, can reduce the burden on judges in resolving disputes in court. On the other hand, the purpose of administrative measures in state administrative cases is oriented towards internal government supervision, as a last resort, and rapid correction.

This study examines the legal protection provided to holders of Building Use Rights (HGB) on land under Management Rights (HPL) as interpreted in Supreme Court Decision No. 2160 K/Pdt/2017. The research aims to understand how civil law is applied to ensure legal certainty for HGB holders on HPL land and to strengthen insight into civil law principles used in resolving land-rights disputes. In the juridical context, land refers to the earth’s surface, while land rights are defined as authority over a specific, limited portion of that surface. Legal certainty, based on written regulations implementing the Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960, provides clarity regarding the rights and obligations of parties who own or control land. The study was conducted at the Sragen Police Resort using documentation methods—reviewing legal texts, literature, and supporting materials—along with field data obtained through interviews with relevant officers and individuals familiar with the case. The findings show that the Judex Facti of the West Java High Court made an error by declaring that no new issues required examination without giving adequate legal reasoning. The court also failed to address the objections submitted by the appellant, violating Article 50 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the previous decision, clarifying the legal consequences and strengthening the interpretation of HGB status on HPL land.

The digital transformation of Indonesia’s judiciary through the e-Court system represents a Supreme Court initiative to realize the principles of speed, simplicity, and affordability as mandated by Article 2(4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of these principles in the implementation of e-Court, particularly in civil cases at District Courts. The research employs a juridical-normative and juridical-empirical approach, collecting data through literature review, document analysis, and interviews with court officials, lawyers, and litigants. The findings indicate that e- Court significantly accelerates case administration, claim submission, and inter-party communication, reflecting a faster and more efficient adjudication process. Nevertheless, challenges remain, including technological infrastructure limitations, digital literacy disparities, and regional inconsistencies in implementation. Furthermore, although case fees have become more affordable, accessibility for people in remote areas continues to hinder procedural simplicity. The study concludes that e-Court has positively contributed to realizing the principles of speed, simplicity, and low cost, yet further policy reinforcement, equitable digital infrastructure, and human resource development are necessary to achieve an inclusive and just digital judiciary.

The enforcement of fair and transparent justice requires a firm guarantee of the principles of fair trial and open justice within the judicial system. These two principles are fundamental to the protection of human rights and serve as essential mechanisms to ensure the accountability of judges as executors of judicial power. This study aims to analyze the implementation of fair trial and open justice principles in judicial oversight practices through the instruments of legal memorandum and public examination (eksaminasi). This research employs a normative method with a statutory and document-based approach. The findings indicate that although not formally regulated as part of Indonesia’s judicial oversight system, legal memoranda and examinations play a significant role in enabling public participation and control over judicial independence and integrity. Strengthening these instruments can serve as an effective strategy to realize an accountable, transparent judiciary that upholds procedural justice.

This article discusses how the independence of the judiciary is based on the Constitutional Court Decision. The obligation of a state of law or rechstaat is the independence of the judiciary. In the concept of Rule of Law and Rechstaat, a state of law is obliged to place a free and impartial judiciary against anyone. The judiciary is also called the broadest possible independence, this is meant as a sign of a good state of law. Independence is usually considered as protection from irresponsible actions. Therefore, in accordance with the mandate of Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, it is necessary to explore the roots of the independence of the judiciary. The opinion of the Constitutional Court itself regarding the decisions that make this Article a kind of test for the judicial review carried out by the Constitutional Court which should be properly discussed and raised as an interpretation of the meaning of the independence of the judiciary. This article discusses the judge's perspective on the decision of the Constitutional Court which discusses the independence of the judiciary. The writing of normative juridical uses a conceptual approach and a case approach. Secondary data is used in this article, and the main legal source is the Decision of the Constitutional Court. Data were analyzed using a qualitative approach.

Initially, the existence of the Judicial Commission was formed based on Law Number 22 of 2004 as a legal derivative of the institution, in article 40 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning judicial power it is stipulated that the Judicial Commission is an external supervisory body that monitors the supervision of judges' behavior based on the code of ethics and guidelines for judges' conduct, and Law Number 18 of 2011 concerning the Judicial Commission. The legal issue of this normative legal research: What is the form of the Judicial Commission arrangement in order to maintain the behavior of judges? What is the urgency of the authority of the Judicial Commission in order to maintain the behavior of judges? The Judicial Commission is regulated in Article 24B of the 1945 Constitution, which gives the authority to propose the appointment of Supreme Court Justice and maintain the honor and conduct of judges. This authority is important to ensure that judges carry out their duties with integrity and in accordance with the applicable code of ethics. The existence of legal gaps related to the limitations of the Judicial Commission's authority in supervising the behavior of judges often makes it difficult to carry out their duties optimally. The urgency of the authority of the Judicial Commission in maintaining the behavior of judges is very important to create a judicial system that is independent, accountable, and trusted by the public. Strengthening the authority and institutional support for the Judicial Commission is needed to ensure that supervisory duties can be carried out effectively, so that the ideals of legal reform in Indonesia can be well achieved.

Corruption crimes are not only committed by civilians, but can be committed by military soldiers, namely the TNI who are educated with discipline. The handling of corruption cases committed by TNI soldiers together with civilians is handled through a connexity trial regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. Although there are rules governing, there are still discrepancies in law enforcement. The main problems in this study are: (1) Is it appropriate for corruption cases committed by military officials to be tried in the Military Court? (2) What are the obstacles in law enforcement against high-ranking military officials who commit corruption crimes?This research is normative legal research, namely by examining literature or legal materials consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. Normative legal research is a scientific research procedure to find the truth based on the logic of legal science from its normative side. The results of this study indicate that: (1) is it appropriate for corruption cases by military officials to be tried in the Military Court: The handling of corruption cases in Basarnas involving active military personnel who are tried in military courts is considered inappropriate because it will create an impression of inconsistent law enforcement, because it contradicts the provisions of Law No.8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code and Law No.48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. (2) Obstacles in law enforcement against high-ranking military officials who commit corruption crimes: Corruption crimes involving active military members stem from disharmonization of laws in the provisions of the Military Justice Law, Corruption Court Law, TNI Law, KPK Law, and Criminal Procedure Code. The researcher's suggestion is that to minimize the differences of opinion that continue to emerge, an extensive regulation on connexity should be made so that it can serve as a guideline in handling corruption cases involving military personnel and civil society.

Indonesia is a legal state whose government system is based on applicable regulations. These regulations are carried out by several powers, namely the Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers. The purpose of this division of power is to avoid injustice due to arbitrary power. The judiciary or judicial institution is an institution whose role is to uphold justice, of course this judicial institution is very important because it is one of the basic pillars of the government system in the Republic of Indonesia. In fact, it is clearly regulated in Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which In essence, the judiciary is an institution that has independent power to administer justice to uphold justice. In this article the authors will discuss the urgency of the Judicial Institution in the government system in Indonesia and the role and operation of the judiciary in the government system. The discussion uses the Normative Juridical method, namely by studying and paying attention to Values, existing regulations.

This research explain how to implement civil cases settlement before and after the implementation from of E-Court system in electronic and conventional court. on this case it explains that civil cases settlement in a modern manner is described according to Supreme Court Regulation Number 7 of 2022 while conventionally described according to HIR / RBG. Before the advent of  system E-Court, the testing method was conducted conventionally. The optimization of these two forms of civil case settlement is then examined according to Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power where the judiciary is administered out with the principles of simple, fast and low cost. This research is a normative legal research with Statute Approach and Conceptual Approach methods. The research concluded: first, the existence of court dualism is still needed for justice seekers who still need conventional lawyers. Second. The implementation of Civil Case Settlement with the presence of E-Court as an effort to realize the principles of simple, fast and low cost in reality has not been optimal, however, E-Court has not fully resolved the cases received by the Supreme Court and the lower courts. That is, most cases are still conducted conventionally.

Corruption is still a scourge and a sore that destroys the economic joints of a country or nation. Problem formulation: 1) What is the normative basis of the authority of the District Attorney's Office in overcoming corruption; 2). What is the role of the District Attorney's Office in overcoming corruption? This research will be compiled using the normative legal research type. The data sources used are primary and secondary data. Secondary data in this study include: Primary legal materials, consisting of: Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, Law Number 31 of 1999 which has been amended to Law Number 21 of 2001, Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission, Law Number 46 of 2009 concerning the Corruption Court. Research results: 1). Protection of patient rights as consumers in medical records is the existence of regulations that The normative basis for the authority of the District Attorney's Office in dealing with corruption crimes is divided into two, namely preventive handling and repressive handling. Preventive handling of corruption crimes by the prosecutor's office is an action taken within the framework before the crime or criminal act occurs, the legal basis for which is Article 30A and Article 30B letter d of Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia. The main umbrella is Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, especially those stated in Article 1 number 6 letters (a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecutor as a criminal investigator also serves as a public prosecutor in handling corruption crimes. So to complete his obligations, the prosecutor must cooperate with other related parties. Cooperation with other parties is called a legal relationship, because in carrying out cooperation in a rule or law that is certain in nature. Legal relations with other parties can be individuals, legal entities and other government agencies.    

Inquiry and investigation in the mechanism there is a difference between the two. Article 1 point 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates investigations to determine whether an event that is suspected of being a crime is true before finally proceeding to the level of investigation. Where the investigation stage aims to determine the truth of a criminal act. After finding out who the perpetrators of the crime were, then in accordance with the constitution a court process will be carried out through an independent judicial power. Merdeka has the principle that judicial power must be free from any form of encouragement or interference from any outside party. It is different from the power to adjudicate in the post-New Order era where legal dualism occurred. This study uses a normative juridical method with a statutory approach (Statute Approach) regarding Law Number 14 of 1970 concerning Judicial Power in the New Order regime as well as a Case Approach (Case Approach) of legal dualism carried out by President Soeharto where presidential power is attached to legal authority. justice. The power of the president attached to the power of the judiciary will give birth to the independence or independence of the decisions of the judges because there is interference from the power of the president.

This study aims to: (1) analyze and find the ratio of the decision of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 49/PUU-X/2012 concerning the annulment of Article 66 paragraph (1) UUJN-2004, (2) the legal impact of the Constitutional Court's decision no. 49/PUU-X/2012 Against Legal Protection for Notaries. The type of research is normative law. While the research approach used, namely: Legislation, contextual approach, and case approach, as well as a comparative approach. The legal materials used in this study are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. While the analysis of legal materials using qualitative analysis. The results of the study show that: (1) The ratio decidendi of the cancellation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning the Position of Notary Public is based, that the article is not in accordance with the principle of equality before the law (equality in law) for every citizen. There is the approval of the Notary Honorary Council, not in accordance with the sense of justice and the criminal law enforcement process, as well as the principle of an independent judicial power; (2) Legal Impact of MK Decision No. 49/Puu-X/2012 Regarding Legal Protection for Notaries, the notary loses his special rights, namely summoning a Notary in the case of interest in a criminal examination does not need to obtain permission from the Regional Supervisory Council as stipulated in the provisions of Article 66 of the JN Law, this is for guarantee legal certainty and responsibility for the deed issued.