Publication Search

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.

Legal certainty can be reached by good and explicit principles in a legislation, as well as its application. Investment requires legal certainty as well. On April 26, 2007, the Investment Law No. 25 of 2007 was enacted. This legislation was enacted to replace Law No. 1 of 1967 on Foreign Investment and Law No. 6 of 1968 on Domestic Investment. There are eleven factors that serve as benchmarks for gauging a country's ease of doing business. One of the indications is related to the resolution of investment conflicts, or in this case, contract enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings. According to the Doing Business 2019 report, Indonesia ranks 73rd (seventy-three) in terms of ease of doing business. Indonesia's EoDB ranking remains distant from the aim of entering the world's top 40 (forty) ranks. This is due to the fact that, among other things, dispute resolution in Indonesia still has various issues, including basic regulations, the trial procedure, and decision implementation. Meanwhile, affordable, fast, and simple conflict resolution facilities are required in the corporate world (according to EoDB indications). The results of this descriptive analytical research utilizing a normative juridical approach reveal that there is no implementing regulation of Law Number 25 of 2007 concerning Investment, which focuses on discussing investment disputes, therefore there is no strong legal certainty in investing in Indonesia. Furthermore, there are several issues concerning the resolution of bankruptcy cases, some of which stem from regulations, namely Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations, some of which can result in certain interests, the length of the bankruptcy court process, and legal certainty following the bankruptcy decision. A breakthrough or update that can support EoDB is required, one of which can be done in the field of investment dispute resolution, particularly connected to contract enforcement and bankruptcy case settlement, by creating implementing regulations and updating associated regulations.

The purpose of the study is to determine and analyze the criminal law protection of embezzlement of assets (Boedel Bankruptcy) of debtors that result in losses to creditors, and obstacles to criminal law enforcement for embezzlement of debtors' assets that result in the formulation of the problem What is the position of criminal law Embezzlement of debtors on their assets that causes creditor losses and how to overcome them. The method used in this study uses the Normative juridical approach method, the data sources are secondary data and primary legal materials.  Research Results (1).  Legal protection of the criminal act of embezzlement of the debtor that causes losses to the debtor, after being declared bankrupt by a judge is a criminal act of embezzlement regulated by Article 372 of the Criminal Code and Article 400 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, because the fulfillment of the criminal elements is fulfilled. (2). Obstacles faced, Uncooperation of the insolvent debtor in carrying out legal proceedings due to the lack of level of legal awareness possessed by the insolvent debtor. To overcome this, the bankrupt debtor should comply with the contents of the decision of the Supreme Court case Number 2K / Pdt.Sus-Pailit / 2019 willing to submit the legality of access to the curator team that will resolve, and as a good Indonesian citizen must obey, submit, and obey the laws and laws in force in Indonesia.

This study aims to: (1) analyze and discover the nature of the approval of the Notary Honorary Council as an effort to protect the law against notaries in the judicial process; (2) Analyze and find law enforcement for Notaries related to Professional Ethics. This type of research is normative law. While the research approach used, namely: Legislation, conceptual 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 regional MKN has the authority to examine applications submitted by investigators, public prosecutors or judges; as well as giving approval or rejection of requests for approval to take photocopies of minuta deed and summons Notaries to attend investigations, prosecutions, and judicial processes (66 paragraph (1) UUJNP), (2) Sanctions imposed on Notaries who violate the professional code of ethics are regulated in Article 85 UUJN, namely in the form of: Verbal warning; Written warning; temporary stop; Honorable discharge; and Dishonorable Dismissal by the Notary Honorary Council.

The state is an organization that has a purpose. The purpose of this study is to enforce the law regarding permits for waste water disposal in motor vehicle washing businesses and the sanctions imposed by the government on motorized vehicle washing businesses that do not have a waste water disposal permit. Normative juridical research, namely research originating from laws and regulations that present actual facts with the topic of study. Law enforcement of waste water disposal permits in motorized vehicle washing businesses through administrative instruments aims to prevent acts or omissions that violate the law or do not meet the requirements, stop or return to their original state (before the violation). So the focus of administrative sanctions is the actions of violators of the rules. In the Surabaya City Regional Regulation Number 12 of 2016 concerning Water Quality Management and Wastewater Control Article 34 explains the administrative sanctions referred to in the form of: written warning, Government coercion, Freezing of waste water disposal permits, Revocation of waste water disposal permits. In addition to administrative sanctions, there are also criminal sanctions in the form of violations. The local government should socialize the Regional Regulation on Water Quality Management and Wastewater Control to the general public and the organizers of motor vehicle washing wastewater management (motor vehicle washing entrepreneurs) in order to increase legal awareness embedded in the community and it is hoped that the government will issue implementing regulations, namely Regulation Mayor.