Environmental law enforcement provides space for environmental organizations to file lawsuits in the interests of environmental conservation as regulated in Article 92 of Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management. However, in practice, the right to sue environmental organizations is not always accepted by the courts, especially when it concerns certain areas such as Limited Production Forests. This study aims to analyze the material of environmental organizations' lawsuits based on Decree Number 16/PDT.G/LH/2023/PN.BKN. This study uses a normative juridical method and a case study approach with data sources in the form of court decision documents and related laws and regulations. The results of the study show that in this case, this Decision shows that it recognizes the active role of environmental organizations in supervising and suing permit applications for forest areas. In this case, the plaintiff organization argued that the defendant's actions in carrying out exploitation activities in the Limited Production Forest area had violated the law and harmed the ecological function of the forest, thus fulfilling the elements of an unlawful act as regulated in Article 1365 of the Civil Code. This finding resulted in an understanding of the analysis related to the material of the environmental organization's right to sue as an instrument of social control and supervision of forest area utilization policies.

This research examines the legal responsibility of corporate guarantors declared bankrupt for their obligations to creditors in loan agreements, analyzing Court Decision No. 318/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Commercial Court Jakarta Central. The study addresses the legal complexities arising when a corporate guarantee becomes insolvent before the principal debtor defaults, creating jurisdictional conflicts between bankruptcy law and guarantee obligations. Using normative legal research methodology with a juridical normative approach, this study analyzes the application of Article 229(2) in conjunction with Article 278(6) of Law No. 37/2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (K-PKPU) and Article 1381 of the Civil Code. The research reveals that the curator's action in obstructing and rejecting PT KawanCicil Teknologi Utama's claim registration against the bankrupt guarantor without proper judicial determination constitutes conduct not based on applicable laws and regulations. The findings demonstrate that when a guarantor is declared bankrupt and the debtor is in default, the Supervisory Judge and Curator must accept PT KawanCicil Teknologi Utama as a creditor with rights to the debtor's assets during asset liquidation proceedings. The study concludes that bankruptcy declaration of a guarantor does not automatically terminate guarantee obligations under Article 1381 of the Civil Code, as bankruptcy is not enumerated among the causes of contract termination. This research contributes to legal certainty in corporate guarantee enforcement within Indonesia's bankruptcy framework and provides recommendations for legislative harmonization between conflicting provisions in bankruptcy law.

This study aims to examine the aspect of justice in the administration and settlement of bankrupt assets by the Curator, particularly concerning the repayment of receivables to creditors in the context of auction minutes issued by the KPKNL Samarinda. The research adopts a normative juridical method, legislation approach and conceptual approach, and is connected to a case study approach focusing on the auction process in the bankruptcy case of PT Karebet Mas Indonesia (in bankruptcy). The results of this study indicate that the Curator, in administering and settling unsold bankrupt assets, may proceed with a private sale (underhand sale) with the approval of the supervising judge, based on a limit value obtained from an independent appraiser’s valuation, provided that at least two public auctions have been conducted without success. The distribution of assets to creditors must observe the principle of pari passu pro rata, which ensures equal treatment according to their respective priorities.In the event that the settlement process of the bankrupt estate has been declared completed, yet the creditors have not received full repayment of their claims, the general provisions under Article 1131 of the Indonesian Civil Code shall apply, namely that all of the debtor’s assets constitute collateral for the fulfillment of their debts. This study recommends an amendment to Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, to regulate in a detailed, specific, and comprehensive manner the requirements for the underhand sale of bankrupt assets by the Curator. Such regulation is necessary to ensure justice and legal certainty for bankrupt debtors and creditors, particularly regarding the repayment of claims for concurrent creditors.

This research analyzes the impact of Indonesian Supreme Court Decision No. 141/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2020 on the execution of personal guarantees (borgtocht) in bankruptcy proceedings. This decision is significant as it has the potential to alter the practice of borgtocht execution and affect legal certainty for both creditors and debtors. The research employs a normative method with a statutory approach and case studies. Legal sources include legislation, legal literature, and relevant court decisions. The findings indicate that the Supreme Court decision provides clarity regarding the position of borgtocht in bankruptcy, yet also raises some legal uncertainties. This research offers recommendations for legal improvements regarding borgtocht execution to ensure legal certainty and fairness for all parties involved..
 
 

Based on The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945), especially in the Preamble to the Fourth Paragraph , the State of Indonesia has objective national For advance well-being general and enlightening life nation . This matter become base law for development national focus on improvement? quality source Power human resources (HR) as the main capital .Education and skills is two element important in creating quality human resources . Article 26 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution confirms that every citizens have the right on education . Article 31 paragraph (3) also states that government responsible answer on maintenance education . This matter show internal state commitment provide access broad and equitable education? for all over people of Indonesia. 

Latar belakang penelitian ialah Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Indramayu Nomor 17/Pdt.G/2019/PN Idm yang membatalkan akta jual beli tanah dan bangunan atau peralihan hak milik antara pembeli dan debitur pailit karena mengandung unsur Actio Paulina. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengkaji tentang penerapan asas Actio Pauliana sebagai bentuk perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditor akibat pengalihan objek kepailitan; (2) mengetahui kajian yuridis perlindungan hukum bagi pembeli yang beritikad baik yang dibatalkan karena adanya gugatan pihak ketiga; dan (3) mengetahui akibat hukum pembatalan jual beli objek kepailitan terhadap pembeli yang beritikad baik. Metode penelitian ialah pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analisis. Hasil penelitian: 1) Pertimbangan hakim atas penerapan Actio Pauliana sebagai bentuk perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditor akibat pengalihan objek kepailitan telah sesuai; (2) Hakim belum mempertimbangkan perlindungan hukum yang diberikan terhadap pembeli tanah/bangunan yang beriktikad baik; dan (3) Kelalaian PT Asuransi Jiwa Bumi Asih Jaya dalam pemenuhan Pasal 1491 KUHPerdata, menjadi salah satu pengingkaran ketentuan Pasal 1320 KUHPerdata terkait syarat sahnya perjanjian yaitu syarat kesepakatan dimana di dalamnya ada kecacatan melalui adanya penipuan.