Search

This paper aims to discuss Indonesia's current legal framework of citizenship following its more pervasive demand to adopt dual citizenship. It argues that several issues regarding citizenship law in Indonesia have been relatively problematic, mainly related to the change of citizenship status contentiously experienced by Arcandra Tahar, Gloria Natapraja, and Djoko Tjandra to the increasing demand for dual citizenship. On the other hand, in this context, Indonesia's diasporas have voiced this interest in legal reform, resulting in more flexible opportunities and supporting transboundary businesses, as they have encountered some challenges due to restricted citizenship regulations. Using legal research, this study showed that citizenship had become a strategic issue with far-reaching implications. While Indonesia adopts a limited scale of dual citizenship and the vigour for dual citizenship has increased, the flexibility over dual citizenship requires further study of national security and citizens' loyalty to Indonesia. This paper suggested in adopting India’s OCI model for Indonesia’s citizenship policies as ample opportunities for this country’s citizens with foreign status to continue enjoying and accessing their rights in Indonesia, except in the political field. This measure subsequently would be a step forward to adapt citizenship regulations to globalisation while still paying attention to the nationalism concern.

Inconsistency between Article 41 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Procurement for Development in the Public Interest and Article 19 paragraph (2) letter c of Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles in conjunction with Article 32 of Regulation Government Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration. Article 19 paragraph (2) letter c of the UUPA in conjunction with Article 32 of PP Number 24 of 1997 which states that the certificate is valid as a strong evidence. Meanwhile, Article 41 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2012 explains that the certificate is valid as a means of absolute proof and cannot be contested in the future. The sentence “inviolability in the future raises the perception that Article 41 will give birth to injustice for third parties if he is the rightful owner of the plot of land that is used as the object of land acquisition. This study aims to determine the suitability of the law on land acquisition for development in the public interest with the land registration system in Indonesia and the legal consequences if there are parties who object to proof of ownership of land acquisition objects for development in the public interest. The method used in this research is normative juridical using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The method of collecting legal materials is through literature study with deductive analysis. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that the law on land acquisition for development in the public interest is not in accordance with the land registration system in Indonesia which causes if there are parties who object to the certificate as proof of ownership of the object of land acquisition, then that party will lose their land rights along with compensation. losses on the implementation of land acquisition if the objecting party can provide other evidence that can weaken the strength of proof of the certificate.

The function of judicial power is to enforce law and justice in the framework of protecting society through justice system based on law in a democratic state of law. One of the important principles of state of law is the existing guarantee of judicial power implementation which is independent, free from the influence of other power to implement justice for law and justice enforcement. Accountability of judge’s performance and Supreme Court institution which is a control form for justice institution becomes an idea concerning the dilema of judicial power independence concept. The supervision of judge’s behaviour by Judicial Commission can hopefully cover the weakness intern supervision by Supreme Court. The judge supervision which can be realised by Judicial Commission includes judicial technic supervision, performance assessment, and judge’s behaviour supervision. This research concerned to the reinforcement of judicial supervision function by judicial commission and Supreme Court as a form of shared responsibility system. The research method used in this research is normative law research method with statute approach, conceptual approach and case approach. Sources of legal materials used are legislation and cases. The results of this study are: the supervision on the judge’s behavior by the Judicial Commission can hopefully cover the weakness of internal supervision by the Supreme Court. It becomes so appropriate that the suprevision on judge is also performed by the Judicial Commission, not only by the Supreme Court. The supervision on judge that can be performed by the Judicial Commission includes the suprevision of judicial technique, performance assessment, and supervision on the judge’s behavior.

The concept of the welfare state upholds the existence of the legal system under the premise of legal certainty and the protection of basic human rights. Paragraph IV of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia emphasizes the existence of “state obligations” and “the government duty” to protect and serve all public interest. The normative basis of the Constitution was translated as the national principle to embody the public services. The Public Service Law Number 25 of 2009 is a formulation of legal certainty. However, the main problem that occurs in the public services is maladministration in bureaucracy. It is important to build interpretations of the authority attached to the bureaucratic system or on subjects who become government officials. By analyzing the Constitution, this article states that the government official dimensions must be considered as an interrelated issue, so that the articulate practice must be seen as inherent social conditions. Keywords: Responsibility, Government Officials, Maladministration.

Kewenangan pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan ( judicial review ) yang sama-sama diberikan kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dan Mahkamah Agung (MA) menimbulkan problematika khusus di dalam sistem kekuasaan kehakiman di Indonesia. Permasalahan tersebut terlihat jelas utamanya dalam implementasi kewenangan baik yang dimiliki MK maupun MA, sebagaimana tidak jarang norma hukum yang dihasilkan oleh putusan MK dan MA saling bertolak belakang. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, artikel ini berupaya untuk mendiskusikan bagaimana kekuatan mengikat putusan pengujian undang-undang pada MK terhadap putusan pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah undang-undang pada MA. Selain itu artikel ini juga hendak memberikan gambaran bagaimana menyelesaikan problematika pertentangan putusan antara pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan dibawah undang-undang pada MA dan pengujian undang-undang pada MK. Artikel ini berkesimpulan bahwa perlu dilakukan integrasi pengujian satu atap peraturan perundang-undangan dibawah MK. Puncaknya, artikel ini merekomendasikan untuk melakukan sinkronisasi dan harmonisasi dengan cara melakukan perubahan terhadap UUD NRI 1945, Undang-Undang Kekuasan Kehakiman, Undang-Undang MA dan Undang-Undang MK.

The issue of citizenship is one part of the study of state studies or commonly referred to as State Administration Law. One element of state existence is citizenship (algemene staatslehre). In the context of citizenship, the issue of citizenship is critical because, in general, the state consists of three elements, namely the territory, people who are identical with citizens, and sovereign government as a constitutive element and the recognition of other countries as declarative elements. Every citizen must have citizenship because it is an essential thing. After all, citizenship has a close relationship between the citizen and the country in which the citizen lives. These matters relate to citizens related to identity, rights, obligations, participation or participation, and shared social ownership. In addition, with citizenship, citizens automatically have legal protection wherever they are. Having two citizenships is no longer a taboo for citizens and is likely to continue to develop in the future. The fact is that there are citizens aged 18 years or over who have dual citizenship, even though the ownership of dual citizenship should be limited. One of the rights of every citizen is the right to be elected and elected. However, there are still citizens who have dual citizenship. Because of dual citizenship, approaching the General Election confuses citizens of those who have dual citizenship but still wants to fulfill their rights in electing potential national leaders and also the right to lead Indonesia. Keywords: Political Rights, Citizenship, Dual Citizenship.