Search

Fulfillment of human rights, especially social security rights based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, still does not show justice for all Indonesian citizens. This happens because of the blurring of norms in the regulation of responsibility for fulfilling human rights, namely about who are the legal subjects who must be responsible and the scope of the scope of their responsibilities in the implementation of social security according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This research aims to find out how the formulation arrangement of responsible subjects and the scope of their responsibilities in fulfilling human rights including the right to social security in Indonesia. This type of research is normative juridical, with a philosophical approach, a conceptual approach, and a statutory approach. Data analysis was carried out using qualitative techniques with descriptive analysis. The results of the study show that the formulation of responsible subject arrangements and the scope of their responsibilities in fulfilling human rights including the right to social security is to make clear and firm legal rules to regulate the responsibility for fulfilling human rights including the scope of fulfilling these human rights, parties who has responsibility, as well as the scope of responsibility in the implementation of social functions in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Spatial planning corporate criminal sanctions are criminal sanctions imposed on corporations as stipulated in Article 74 of Law Number 26 of 2007. The criminal sanction can be applied in controlling the planning of the territory so that there is order and the space is protected from violations of the use of the space. However, when looking at the data on zoning violations, this hope is still illusory where existing law has failed to deal with corporate violations. In addition, criminal liability has not reached the beneficiaries of the proceeds of corporate crimes so that the legal objectives are not achieved. The aim of this study is to find out what the legal implications of incomplete criminal sanctions instead of fines are for corporations in land-use offences. This research is a normative legal study with multiple approaches, including statutory approaches, case approaches, historical approaches, comparative approaches, and conceptual approaches. Legal material analysis techniques are performed in perspective. The results of the study show that the legal implication of incomplete criminal penalties instead of fines for corporations in land-use offenses is expressed only by Article 74 para. (1) to the Territorial Planning Law (UUPR) 26/2007 - Criminal sanctions for corporations. This cannot simply be operationalized because there is no regulation on the mode of committing crimes (straf modus), there are multiple interpretations that cause confusion. They lead to the non-fulfillment of the legal objectives in the article a quo.

The terms "Default" and "Fraud" and/or "Embezzlement" are often interchanged without clarity of meaning in many discussion forums, both oral and written. This confusion can be seen from the many court decisions that acquit defendants from prosecution which have permanent legal force. The public often hears that law enforcers carry out criminalization, such as witnesses becoming suspects, suspects becoming defendants and so on by shifting the civil legal action of Default to criminal act of Fraud and/or Embezzlement. Using 'criminalization' and 'criminalized' in this article is considered inappropriate, so it has been replaced by 'criminalizing' and 'criminalized'. If there is an action to shift the civil legal act of Default into a criminal act of Fraud and/or Embezzlement, so from a human rights perspective, it is against the law. By using normative legal research methods, this paper examines how to differentiate civil legal acts of Default from criminal acts of Fraud and/or Embezzlement, how to apply civil compensation in cases where there are already criminal legal remedies, and what is the legal and human rights perspective when criminalization occurs. This paper uses a statutory approach and a case approach. The results show: First, there is a real difference between civil legal acts of Default and criminal acts of Fraud and/or Embezzlement; Second, the application of compensation can be carried out through criminal and civil procedural law mechanisms; Finally, criminalizing civil legal acts into criminal acts is a form of violation of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Media Iuris is the property of Universitas Airlangga and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In order to fulfill the principle of the constitutional state, Republic of Indonesia in its constitution admit and guarantee that every people have rights of recognition, guarantee, protection, fair legal certainty and equality before the law. Discretionary power or freies ermessen attached to administrative power even according to the principle of constitutional state every authority should be based on law, but in certain situation and condition in which the law has not or does not clearly regulated, the officials or administration agencies should make an action or decision based on policy or discretionary of power. Although freies ermessen is created in the form of regulation that is known as policy rule or beleid regel but the act of administration agencies that is freies ermessen that is most potential for abuse of power. Therefore, in sentence of Corruption Crime it is based on the purpose of sentence namely improving and protecting society thus the criminal responsibility who is always asked for the convict in the criminal act while it is still based on purpose of sentence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Countering terrorism literally means combating terrorism. In general countering terrorism can defined as an attempt of prevention and controlling the terrorism. Related to Sandler's opinion stating that there are two main categories in anti-terror policy namely proactive and defensive, then countering terrorism contextually is all efforts done by the state to overcome for example prevention, law enforcement, and others as a form of solutions in controlling terrorism formulated in policy (positive law). As the increase of terrorism crime in Indonesi? it makes the government to further revise Law Number 15 of 2003 with new politics of law. Law Number 5 of 2018 on Amendment of Law Number 15 of 2003 on Establishment of Perppu Number 1 of 2002 on Eradication of Terorism Act to be Law (UU No.5 of 2018 on Eradication of Terorism Act) not only mandate repressive efforts, but also obligate the government to do the prevention. Terrorism is not extraordinary crime anymore but it is a serious crime that should be handled using serious me?sures. This study uses juridical normative method; study of law to find rules of law, principles of law, or doctrines of law to answer problems of law that are going to be investigated, including the study of principles of law, system?tics of law, vertic?l and horizont?l synchronization of law, comparison of law, and histories of law. The aim that wants to be achieved is finding comprehensive counterterrorism of terrorism crime in Indonesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criminal Disparity in a corruption case is unacceptable in philosophical reasoning, sociologically, or even from the perspective of legal objectives, which in theory and factual facts lead to judicial caprise and the presumption of judicial corruption in the verdict, where it will adversely affect the fair justice of the convicted or for the Indonesian people as victims of corruption. Criminal Law gives alternative in order to give pressure the criminal disparity through straftoemetingsleiddraad or guidance of sentencing of the judges in prosecuting without violating the principle of freedom of judges, either through the Indonesian Supreme Court Regulations for now as ius constitutum, or through the legislation process of the Anti-Corruption Act for the future as ius constituendium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]