Search

The coast of western Indonesia (Aceh province) has been the entrance for Rohingya refugees since 2012. At the beginning of 2020, the Rohingya refugees continued to arrive, although some of them have been resettled and transferred to the third countries. The Indonesian government rejected a large number of Rohingya refugees because there were no lex specialis in the Indonesian immigration arrangement related to asylum seekers and refugees. Historically, Indonesia was a country with commitment and experiences in dealing with refugees, however to date, Indonesia refused to become a party to the 1951 International Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol on Refugees. Hence, there is no legal standards of the refugee management in Indonesia, and thus it complicates the management of the incoming Rohingyas. Responding to such issue, the government has issued the Presidential Regulation Number 125 of 2016 concerning the foreign refugee management to provide a temporary legal standard for all forms of refugee protection in Indonesia. However, such regulation has yet to comprehensively settled the management of the Rohingya people in Indonesia, particularly in Aceh province. This paper strongly advocates the Indonesian government to ratify the 1951 International Refugee Convention as to protect and settle the refugee under the non-refoulment principle which is fundamentally referred to humanitarian values.

Aceh Province as an Islamic Sharia Regional has culture and customs based on the values of the Quran and Hadith. For the Acehnese people, customs and laws cannot be totally separated that Acehnese customary law continues to grow until the birth of Acehnese Qanun Number 9 of 2008 concerning the Development of Indigenous and Customary Life. In the implementation, the customary sanctions experience some obstacles due to their unwritten characteristic that made them slightly shifted by the presence of national law. As what happens nowadays in Central Aceh District which is famous with its traditional values, there found legal issues for the customary instrument (Sarak Opat) when the customary sanctions considered discriminatory and arbitrary. Therefore, the settlement of customary disputes must be in accordance with humanitarian principles prioritizing the principle of deliberation and peace although many obstacles still exist at the level of implementation because of lack of understanding by both community and customary instruments related to the implementation of customary itself.

Article 65 of Law No. 2 of 2014 concerning Notarial Department states "Notary, Substitute Notary and Notary Acting Officer are responsible for any deed made even though the Notary Protocol has been submitted or transferred to the notary protocol depository." In practice, it often occurs when the Protocol Deed is transferred to the Notary protocol holder of the party harmed by the existence of the deed to a lawsuit involving a retired notary public. This is as happened in the case in the Banda Aceh District Court. This relates to the summoning of witnesses who must obtain approval from the Notary Honorary Assembly in accordance with Article 66 paragraph 1 of the UUJN. This research aims to explain the position of the Deed made by a retired Notary who is sued to the Court and the liability of the Notary Protocol Holder if the Deed of Protocol held in question in the Court and to know the need for approval from the Notary Honorary Assembly if the retired notary is called as a witness in a court case. The research method used is normative research method. The data used is primary data. The results showed that: A retired notary (werda) the position of the deed that he made as a deed of protocol submitted to the Notary protocol holder. If the deed of protocol is questioned to the court, then the retired notary is responsible for the deed he made. The notary of the Protocol holder cannot be held liable for the Deed of Protocol he holds if it is in question in the Court. If there is a problem with the deed then the responsible person remains the notary concerned and not the notary protocol holder. The summons of a retired Notary does not require permission from the Notary Honorary Assembly (MKN).

Based on Article 32 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration states, in the event that a land area has been issued a certificate legally and on behalf of a person or legal entity who acquires the land in good faith and expressly controls it, then the other party who feels that it has the right to the land, can no longer demand the exercise of the right if within a period of 5 years from the issuance of the certificate does not object in writing to the holder of the certificate or the Head of the Land Office concerned or does not file a lawsuit to the Court regarding the mastery or issuance of the certificate. Legal problems arise that a certificate that has been issued a certificate for 5 years can not be sued in court on an validity basis. The results showed that the cancellation of land rights certificate by tun court based on The State Administrative Court Law, cancellation of land certificates by deliberation and other efforts and unilateral settlement by the National Land Agency (BPN) has been carried out, where the plaintiffs held a review of the State Administrative Decision that has been issued can not be received by the plaintiff or the disputing party. Prior to the ruling that has legal force it remains prohibited for the relevant State Administration officials to carry out mutations on the land in question, it is to avoid the occurrence of problems in the future that cause harm to the litigants and third parties.

Persons that involved in an armed conflict are protected by law which regulated in Article 13 of Geneva Convention 1949. There are some persons who receive protection such as combatants, militia and levee en maase and civilians as a matter of law, however , the protection itself has not been fully implemented. This article aims to discuss persons who receive protection whether the persons involve in an armed conflict or not. In principle, persons who involve in an armed conflict must protect the combatants who took direct participation when the combatants are wounded and hostile. However, the protection are not implemented accordingly since the y often receive violence attacks. Furthermore, civilians often became victim of attack that classified as inhuman treatment. Keyword s : Protected, proctected p ersons, armed conflict