Perum Perhutani has experienced an increase in tourism, necessitating standardization through the "Canopy" certification as a management guideline. This is regulated under the Decree of the President Director of Perhutani Number 2026/KPTS/DIR/2017 concerning the Standardization of Nature Tourism Management for Perum Perhutani, aimed at improving product and service quality, preserving forest sustainability, and benefiting the community. However, the "Canopy" service mark proposed by Perhutani was rejected by DJKI. The rejection was based on the similarity in pronunciation and type of goods with the registered mark "The Canopy." In fact, the two marks operate in different fields: "Canopy" for tourism services (class 39) and "The Canopy" for stationery (class 16). Thus, their products do not directly compete. The rejection of the "Canopy" mark is considered inconsistent with Article 21 of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The absence of legal action from Perhutani has resulted in the inability to use the mark, as it risks violating Article 100 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same law. This research employs a juridical-empirical method with a qualitative approach through observation, interviews, documentation, and literature review. The findings indicate that Perhutani has complied with Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy Number 27 of 2014 concerning Recreational Park Business Standards through the "Canopy" certification. This has provided ecological, social, and economic benefits, as well as improved facilities and services. The rejection of the "Canopy" mark has caused financial losses at several tourist locations. Rebranding cannot proceed without a replacement name, causing the standardization program for nature tourism management to halt. The researcher recommends that Perhutani promptly create a replacement name for the certification so that the standardization program can continue and be applied to other Perhutani tourist destinations.

This study explores the regulatory and institutional framework for relocating Indonesia’s national capital (Ibu Kota Nusantara, IKN) from Jakarta to East Kalimantan, a plan rooted in the integrative ideology articulated by Soepomo in 1945. This ideology emphasizes harmony between macrocosmic and microcosmic forces within the state, suggesting that the government center should be located centrally within the country to symbolize supreme authority. The relocation is also seen as a crucial move toward achieving “Indonesia Emas 2045”. However, the enactment of Law No. 3 of 2022, which serves as the legal basis for the relocation, has faced significant criticism, particularly regarding the regulatory, institutional, and funding aspects. Previous studies have often been opinion-based and lacked scientific rigor, especially in addressing the complexities of policy implementation. This research aims to fill this gap by providing a detailed analysis of the policy from regulatory and institutional perspectives. The study uses a normative legal approach, incorporating both statute and conceptual analyses, to evaluate the regulatory and institutional frameworks guiding the capital relocation. While it does not extensively address funding issues, it focuses on identifying how well the existing rules align with the policy’s implementation goals. Findings suggest that while the relocation offers significant benefits, such as promoting national unity and symbolizing progress, the process faces challenges, including conflicts with existing regulations and institutional inefficiencies. The contribution of this study lies in offering actionable insights for both the government and civil society to assess and improve the policy’s implementation, ensuring its alignment with the broader vision of national development.

A land dispute case was experienced by residents of Kebonharjo, Tanjung Mas Village, Semarang City against the Indonesian Railways Limited Company (PT KAI), where PT. KAI claims that the Kebonharjo Residents' land belongs to PT. KAI with grondkaart as a proof base. The State Treasury Law is the main basis regarding grondkaart. Decision “No. 227/Pdt.G/2016/PN. Smg,” provides information that grondkaart is still legally valid. Meanwhile Law no. 5 of 1960 and Law no. 23 of 2007, provide mutual explanations regarding orders for making certificates for land rights. This article uses a normative juridical approach, and descriptive analysis of the basis of land ownership rights in the form of grondkaart. The research results show that a state based on Pancasila really prioritizes the value of material justice which originates from the will of the people who have a strong relationship with their land, so that it can be equated with human rights. The state cannot arbitrarily control people's land rights, and the law must be in accordance with the wishes of the community, namely as a form of service by the state, not a form of confiscation by the state. Grondkaart is not stronger than a land certificate, where the form of a land certificate is considered stronger because it contains the will of the community to transfer it consciously and is not a form of confiscation. From a normative juridical point of view, Indonesian land law does not adhere to legal positivism in which Indonesian society is united by the awareness in their souls to will on the basis of Pancasila, so that their will cannot be concretized by the state in the form of any regulations, but state regulations remain as a means of order and realizing shared prosperity.

This research aims to examine copyright protection against unlawful acts, particularly in the context of piracy and claims over songs in the era of disruption. Through a normative juridical approach and data collection techniques via library research, this study explores the theoretical foundations of justice in law, the definition of unlawful acts, and the urgency of copyright protection for musical works. In-depth analysis is conducted on copyright discourse concerning music piracy, as well as the concept of legal protection that offers solutions and ideals for piracy or claims over songs. The research findings indicate that song piracy is not merely a common legal violation but also threatens the economic sustainability and creativity of music creators. Therefore, copyright protection must be accompanied by proactive preventive measures and effective law enforcement. In conclusion, copyright protection is a prerequisite for achieving justice in the music industry in the current digital era, requiring cross-sector collaboration and policy innovation to address the challenges faced.