scholarly journals Constitutional Approach of Regulations about Electoral Opinion Polling under the Public Official Election Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-247
Author(s):  
이노홍
Keyword(s):  
Public Official ◽  
Election Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Opinion Polling

scholarly journals Mengawal Anggota Legislatif Mewujudkan Pemerintahan yang Bersih*

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 634
Author(s):  
M Muslih
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Election Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legislative Body ◽  
Election Process ◽  
Professional Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Legislative Election

Legislative members are partners as well as balancing the government in regulating and controlling the government, therefore it is necessary to have a "presence" of honest and clean professional legislators. Reality shows that the professionalism of some legislators still disappoints some of their constituents. For this reason, it is necessary to think about how to escort members of the legislative body in order to realize a clean government. To meet these expectations an election process is needed that can guarantee the implementation of an honest and fair election process. In order to realize the ideal above, the presence of a good legislative Election Law, a professional law enforcement apparatus, and a culture of high legal awareness from the public in exercising their voting rights.

scholarly journals ANALISIS PENERAPAN WILAYAH KERJA PPAT BERDASARKAN PERATURAN PEMERINTAH NOMOR 24 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG PERUBAHAN ATAS PERATURAN PEMERINTAH NOMOR 37 TAHUN 1998 DI PROVINSI DKI JAKARTA

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Ivandi Setiawan ◽  
Rasji .
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Public Official ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
Work Area ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

PPAT is a public official authorized to make authentic deeds concerning certain legal acts concerning the right to land or the Property Right of the Flats Unit. Government Regulation No. 24 of 2016 is the latest regulation made by the government to regulate provisions on PPAT. in Government Regulation No. 24 of 2016 in Article 12 paragraph one explained that the scope of work area of PPAT is expanded into one province where in the previous regulation that is government regulation number 37 year 1998 explained that the scope of work of PPAT is only limited to district only. but the fact is now the government regulation number 24 of 2016 has not been applied efficiently, especially in terms of the scope of work of PPAT, it happens because of several factors that hamper causing the loss of effectiveness in Article 12 Paragraph one of Government Regulation No. 24 of 2016 . it is of course also contrary to the legal certainty that the public should have legal certainty with the enactment of the government regulation number 24 of 2016 by the government then the regulation should be applicable in the scope of the working area of PPAT should be applicable in practice in the community. contrary to lex posterior derogate legi priori principle which explains that in the same rules the new rules can replace the old rules. the approach used in this study using the approach of law.

Chinese Citizenry Social Media Pressures and Public Official Responses

2020 ◽  
pp. 139-181
Author(s):  
James Robert Masterson
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Public Official ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Government ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
High Level

Widespread use of social media in China is a double edged sword: social media offers opportunities for the government to connect with society, gauge the opinion of citizens in the public domain, and allow citizens to voice their anger when necessary by blowing off steam online rather than in the streets. However, social media also allows citizens to access information outside of China much more rapidly and efficiently and to link up and communicate with other citizens much more quickly. Social media allows users to share texts, photos, and files, making it much more difficult for the government to control information and to thwart organizing for political purposes. In some instances, the use of social media has forced the Chinese government to take actions that it otherwise would not have done or to reverse actions or policies already set in place. The goal of this chapter is to illustrate the double-edged sword that social media poses to government officials in China, particularly high-level party officials in Beijing.

Freedom of Speech for Public Officials vs. the Political Parties' Right to Equal Opportunity: The German Constitutional Court's Recent Rulings Involving the NPD and the AfD

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-212
Author(s):  
Thomas Kliegel
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Equal Opportunity ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Official ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Election Process ◽  
Political Function ◽  
The Right

Public Officials are bound by the fundamental rights when they are acting in their political function. Acting as such they cannot, in general, claim the freedom of speech for themselves as normal citizens do. If they give statements regarding other political parties they have to abide by the principle of neutrality. Statements that could be understood as negative will be — especially if they are made during the election process — a violation of the right of political parties to equal opportunity, which is an indispensable element of the free and open process of forming popular opinion. The delineation of whether a public official is appearing as such, as a “party politician” or “private individual” can, however, be difficult and it is the obligation of the public official to leave no doubt about the role he is exercising. Different from any other public official the Federal President needs not comply with the principle of neutrality. He has a broad margin of assessment and only transgresses his legal boundaries if he violates the integrative task of his office in an arbitrary manner.

Obligation to Prove Appearer Document Authenticity as Deelneming Claim Exception

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 761
Author(s):  
Agus BUDIANTO ◽  
Jonker SIHOMBING ◽  
Veronica Dini KRISSANTI ◽  
Silvia JAMIN ◽  
Rudy PRAMONO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Standard Operating Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Legal Services ◽  
Public Official ◽  
The Public ◽  
Law And Ethics ◽  
Ethics Code

Notary is a public official who provides legal services to the public. Notary's Authorities are regulated in Article 16 paragraph (1) of Law Number 2 of 2014 on Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2004 on Position of Notary. Based on data of Directorate of General Criminal Investigation Metro Jaya in 2014 and 2017, the number of Notaries who were placed as suspects and witnesses of criminal acts and falsification were increased. It was because of the absence of obligation to prove appearer document authenticity as contained in Supreme Court Decree Number 702 K/Sip/1973, September 5, 1973. The research was sociological normative by testing the truth of deelneming criminal exception with secondary data, supported by primary data in the form of interviews, using non-random purposive sampling. Theory of lesser evil made Notary is excluded from deelneming claim in Article 55 of Criminal Code on documents falsification, as long as the Public Notary applies 2015 Law and Ethics Code, and ignores Supreme Court Decree Number 702 K/Sip/1973, September 5, 1973. Further, he continues to conduct his duties within a standard operating procedure for himself and related agencies when proving the documents in the form of minutes. Therefore, this exception principle in falsification is given conditionally. It applies to Notary if he can prove that he has conducted an act to prove appearer documents).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document