scholarly journals Menimbang Kewenangan DPR dalam Penggunaan Hak Angket Pada Kasus Korupsi KTP Elektornik

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Fahmi Ramadhan Firdaus ◽  
Bayu Dwi Anggono
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Control Function ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Monitoring Mechanism ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

In Indonesia, the control function of the House of Representatives (DPR) includes interpellation rights, inquiry rights and the right to express opinions. In 2017, the DPR's inquiry rights to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) were considered unconstitutional because the law did not include the KPK as the object of the inquiry mechanism. However, the Constitutional Court (MK) in Decision Number 36 / PUU-XV / 2017 defined KPK as an executive so that this institution can be monitored through the inquiry mechanism. This court's decision, however, contradicts to the four previous decisions which classified KPK as an independent institution. This article examines the validity of the DPR's inquiry rights to the KPK by considering the DPR's inquiry rights as a form of a mechanism for mutual checks and balances to the other state institutions. In practice, there are both formal and material rules that must be fulfilled so that their implementation is legally valid and the DPR's inquiry rights to the KPK in cases of the electronic KTP corruption ignore these conditions. This article recommends that the DPR be careful when using inquiry rights as a monitoring mechanism. Keywords: Inquiry rights, House of Representatives, Corruption Eradication Commission

scholarly journals KEDUDUKAN KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Mahesa Rannie
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Institution ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Independent State ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
The Right

Abstrak Kedudukan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia memang seringkali diperdebatkan, hal ini terbukti dengan Putusan-Putusan MK yang berubah-ubah. Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusannya pernah beberapa kali memutuskan berbeda tentang kedudukan KPK ini dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Mahkamah Konstitusi pernah memutuskan KPK merupakan lembaga negara independen di luar ranah kekuasaan eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif. Pernah pula memutuskan bahwa KPK merupakan eksekutif dilihat dari kewenangannya. Putusan-putusan MK ini tentu saja membawa pengaruh terhadap undang-undang KPK. Revisi undang-undang KPK terbaru, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 menyatakan KPK masuk dalam ranah kekuasaan eksekutif sehingga dengan demikian KPK dapat menjadi objek hak angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR). Hal demikian tentu saja menambah panjang perdebatan di kalangan ahli hukum dengan argumentasinya masing-masing. Dari argumentasi-argumentasi tersebut penulis menganggap KPK adalah lembaga negara independen di luar struktur organ negara yang utama. Hal ini sejalan dengan theory the new separation of power sebagai konsekuensi dari teori negara kesejahteraan (welfare state) di era abad modern ini. Sebagai lembaga negara independen yang kedudukannya tidak sekuat lembaga negara utama dalam ranah kekuasaan eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif tentu saja KPK bisa dibubarkan jika lembaga yang selama ini sebetulnya mempunyai wewenang kuat untuk melaksanakan penegakan hukum dalam rangka pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi (Kepolisian dan Kejaksaan) mampu berbenah diri. Selama belum mampu berbenah maka wewenang tersebut bisa dilaksanakan oleh KPK yang keberadaannya sampai saat ini masih tetap diperlukan dalam rangka pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia. Kata kunci: Kedudukan KPK, Sistem Ketatanegaraan, Indonesia Abstract The position of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in the constitutional system of Indonesia is often debated. This is evidenced by the inconsistent decisions of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has ever made different decisions several times regarding the position of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in the constitutional system of Indonesia. The Constitutional Court once decided that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was an independent state institution outside the realm of executive, legislative and judicial powers. It has also decided that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is an executive body in terms of its authority. These inconsistent decisions of the Constitutional Court, of course, have an influence on the law of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The latest revision of the law of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), namely the Law Number 19 of 2019 states that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is classified to be in the realm of executive power so that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) can become the object of the right to inquiry by the House of Representatives (DPR). This situation, of course, adds to the length of debate among legal experts with their respective arguments. Based on these arguments, the writer considers that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is an independent state institution outside the main state organ structure. This is in line with the theory of the new separation of power as a consequence of the theory of the welfare state in this modern era. As an independent state institution whose position is not as strong as the main state institutions in the realm of executive, legislative and judicial powers, of course, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) can be dissolved if the institutions that actually have strong authority to carry out law enforcement in the context of eradicating criminal acts of corruption (Police and Prosecutors) are able to empower themselves to execute their authority. However, if those institutions have not been able to execute their authority, this authority can be exercised by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), whose existence is still needed in the context of eradicating criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia.

scholarly journals URGENSI PEMBENTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG HAK ANGKET DPR RI (THE URGENCY OF MAKING THE LAW ON THE RIGHT OF INQUIRY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-194
Author(s):  
Novianto Murthi Hantoro
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Current Regulation ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Prior to the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK), the implementation of the right to inquiry was regulated in two laws, namely Law No. 6 of 1954 on the Establishment of the Rights of Inquiry of the House of Representatives (DPR) and Law No. 27 of 2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. Through proposal for judicial review, MK decided the Law on the Rights of Inquiry was null and void because it was not in accordance with the presidential system adopted in the 1945 Constitution. Today, the exercise of the right of inquiry is only based on Law on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. Nonetheless, the Amendment of Law No. 27 of 2009 into Law No. 17 of 2014 could not accommodate some substances of the null and void Law on the Rights of Inquiry. The urgency of the formulation of the law on the right to inquiry, other than to carry out the Constitutional Court’s decision; are to close the justice gap of the current regulation; to avoid multi-interpretation of the norm, for example on the subject and object of the right of inquiry; and to execute the mandate of Article 20A paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. The regulation on the right to inquiry shall be formulated separately from the Law on MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD, with at least several substances to be discussed, namely: definition, mechanisms, and procedure, as well as examination of witnesses, expert, and documents. AbstrakSebelum adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK), pelaksanaan hak angket diatur dalam dua undang-undang, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1954 tentang Penetapan Hak Angket DPR (UU Angket) dan Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2009 tentang Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD). Melalui permohonan pengujian undang-undang, MK membatalkan keberlakuan UU Angket karena sudah tidak sesuai dengan sistem presidensial yang dianut dalam UUD 1945. Pelaksanaan hak angket saat ini hanya berdasarkan UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD. Penggantian UU No. 27 Tahun 2009 menjadi UU No. 17 Tahun 2014 tentang MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD ternyata tidak mengakomodasi beberapa substansi UU Angket yang telah dibatalkan. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, terdapat urgensi untuk membentuk Undang-Undang tentang Hak Angket DPR RI. Urgensi tersebut, selain sebagai tindak lanjut putusan MK, juga untuk menutup celah kekosongan hukum pada pengaturan saat ini dan untuk menghindari multi-interpretasi norma, misalnya terhadap subjek dan objek hak angket. Pengaturan mengenai hak angket perlu diatur di dalam undang-undang yang terpisah dari UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD, dengan materi muatan yang berisi tentang pengertian-pengertian, mekanisme, dan hukum acara. Pembentukan Undang-Undang tentang Hak Angket diperlukan guna memenuhi amanat Pasal 20A ayat (4) UUD 1945.

scholarly journals Analysis of Reduction of Authority of The Constitutional Court Through The Law on General Election

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 01001
Author(s):  
Budiman N.P.D Sinaga ◽  
Sahat H.M.T Sinaga
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Law ◽  
Election Results ◽  
The Republic

In the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia, there is an order to further regulate in the Law such as the general election that has been enacted Law No. 7/ 2017 on General Election. In its Law, the results of the general election is merely a dispute over the result of the general election regarding the determination of the vote which may affect the election participants’ seats and the President and Vice President election results. The objective of this paper is to find out the legal consequences of the provisions of the law which reduce the authority of state institutions that have been regulated in the 1945 Constitution. The approach of this research is status approach that will be used by examining the laws and regulations relating to the problem. The provisions of the Law on General Elections can be said to have reduced the authority of the Constitutional Court granted the Constitution. There should be strong grounds for an amendment to this provision it can be done immediately by the House of Representatives and the President. Testing by the Constitutional Court may be done but it is better through changes by the House of Representatives and the President.

scholarly journals Relevansi Putusan Uji Materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Sistem Checks and Balances dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-379
Author(s):  
Despan Heryansyah ◽  
Harry Setya Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Republic

This article discusses the relevance of the judicial review decision by the Constitutional Court to the checks and balances system in law legislation in Indonesia. In the framework of checks and balances between state institutions, the existence of the authority of the Constitutional Court to examine laws against the Constitution can be seen as a limitation for the legislators. This is because the discretion of legislators, namely the President and the House of Representatives, in carrying out the legislation function can be limited by the interpretation of the Constitution carried out by the Constitutional Court. This article concludes, the checks and balances mechanism regulated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is realized with the principle of power limited by power. Therefore, the authority and decision of the judicial review by the Constitutional Court is not an intervention on the authority of lawmakers so that it isi assumed to pass the checks and belances principle. The authority and decision of the judicial review by the Constitutional Court actually confirms the manifestation of the principle of power limited by power and affirming the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus, the principle of supremacy of the Constitution in the context of the rule of law places the Constitution as the highest law. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas relevansi putusan uji materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap sistem checks and balances dalam pembentukan hukum berupa undang-undang di Indonesia. Dalam kerangka checks and balances antar lembaga negara, adanya kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi menguji undang-undang terhadap Konstitusi dapat dipandang sebagai suatu pembatasan bagi pembentuk undang-undang. Sebab, keleluasaan pembentuk undang-undang, yaitu Presiden dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, dalam menjalankan fungsi legislasi bisa dibatasi oleh adanya tafsir Konstitusi yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Artikel ini menyimpulkan, mekanisme checks and balances yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 diwujudkan dengan prinsip kekuasaan dibatasi oleh kekuasaan. Karena itu, kewenangan dan putusan uji materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi bukanlah wujud intervensi terhadap kewenangan pembentuk undang-undang dan melampaui prinsip checks and balances. Kewenangan dan putusan uji materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi justru menegaskan wujud dari prinsip kekuasaan dibatasi kekuasaan dan meneguhkan supremasi Konstitusi. Demikianlah, prinsip supremasi Konstitusi dalam konteks negara hukum yang menempatkan Konstitusi sebagai hukum tertinggi.

scholarly journals Konstruksi Yuridis Politik Legislasi DPD Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 92/PUU-X/2012

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 755
Author(s):  
Ria Casmi Arrsa
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Institutional Arrangement ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
Political Realm

The position of Regional Representative Council in the context of the implementation of the legislative function has an important role in order to create the principle of checks and balances between state institutions which include the House of Representatives and the President. Contextually Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012 reinforce the DPD position both in terms of national legislation program planning, delivery of opinions, views, list of inventory issues,  and discussion of a draft law. Much progress has been achieved but in the political realm seems legislative authority of the DPD is still not perfect when not reached the stage of deciding to join a draft law being discussed. In order to strengthen    DPD as part of regional representation, the amendments to the Constitution of  1945 was important to conduct state institutional arrangement holistically and comprehensively.

scholarly journals INTERPRETASI MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERHADAP PENGUJIAN PERATURAN PEMERINTAH PENGGANTI UNDANG-UNDANG

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Anwar Hafidzi ◽  
Panji Sugesti
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

Abstract: The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia has 4 (four) authorities and one obligation, as for those authorities, namely: (1) The Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first and last level whose decisions are final to test the Law against the Constitution, (2) decide authority disputes of State Institutions whose authority is granted by the Constitution, (3) decide upon the dissolution of political parties, (4) and decide upon disputes about the results of general elections. The obligations, namely the Constitutional Court is obliged to give a decision on the opinion of the House of Representatives regarding the alleged violation by the President and / or Vice President. Beyond the specified authority, the Constitutional Court has increased its authority to test the Substitute Government Regulations. The research method used in this study is a type of normative legal research that is a literature study or documentary, by examining theories, concepts and legal principles. The results of this study found that there is indeed no rule that gives the Constitutional Court authority to test regulation in lie of law, but the Constitutional Court has the consideration that the legal norms contained in the Perppu are the same as the Law. The results of this study are that the interpretation used by constitutional justices to test Perppu is a teleological and sociological interpretation.Keywords: Interpretation; Test; PERPPU; Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Dekonstruksi Hak Imunitas Anggota DPR Dalam Perspektif Equality Before The Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-45
Author(s):  
Supriyadi A Arief
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Normative Study ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe birth of the Constitutional Court Verdict No.16 / PUU-XVI / 2018 has implications for the authority of the Council of Honors (MKD) of the House Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-RI) which was previously regulated in Article 2 of Act Number 2 of 2018 concerning the Second Amendment to Act Number 17 of 2018 concerning the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR-RI), Regional Representative Council (DPRD), and Regional House of Representatives (DPD) (UU MD3). The problem in this study is First, how is the position of the right to immunity of members of the house of representatives in the perspective of equality before the law?. Second, how is the implication of the Constitutional Court No.16/PUU-XVI/2018 releated to the MKD (Council Honorary Court)?. This research is a normative study using a legislative approach, a historical apporach, and a case approach. The results of the study show that right of immunity of the DPR members not contradicting the principle of equality before the law as long as the meaning of the right of immunity does not cover the total immunity of the members of the DPR as citizens in general. In addition, the right of immunity only relates to the functions and authority and duties of the DPR. The verdict of the Constitutional Court No.16/PUU-XVI/2018 has implications on two things, the abolition of MKD authority in giving preliminary considerations before the Presidents written permission is born, as well as an agreement to call and request information from DPR Members in relations to criminal acts only through the Presidents permission.Keywords: House of Representatives, Constitutional Court, Equality Before The Law, RightOf Immunity.

scholarly journals The Original Intent of Settings Judicial Review of Local Regulations in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 300
Author(s):  
Desyanti Desyanti ◽  
Sudarsono Sudarsono ◽  
Muchamad Ali Safa’at ◽  
Tunggul Anshari Setia Negara
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Original Intent ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Library Studies ◽  
The Right

There are differences in the characteristics of judicial review in the Supreme Court and in the Constitutional Court in terms of the object being tested and the use of test stones that are indeed by the authority granted by the 1945 Constitution. The principle of audi et alteram partem is a general principle in the study of law, so the judicial review process in the Supreme Court which is only one-way and closed should not be carried out. This article analyzes and explores the original intent of granting judicial review authority to regional regulations at the Supreme Court. This article is normative legal research conducted by examining legal materials (library studies) or secondary data. The original intent the granting of judicial review authority to the Supreme Court is intended to foster checks and balances between various high state institutions. In addition, the granting of the right of judicial review is intended to enforce checks and balances between the three branches of power.

CIVIL AND LEGAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav Skoromnyy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pension System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Model Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article presents the conceptual foundations of bringing judges to civil and legal liability. It was found that the civil and legal liability of judges is one of the types of legal liability of judges. It is determined that the legislation of Ukraine provides for a clearly delineated list of the main cases (grounds) for which the state is liable for damages for damage caused to a legal entity and an individual by illegal actions of a judge as a result of the administration of justice. It has been proved that bringing judges to civil and legal liability, in particular on the basis of the right of recourse, provides for the payment of just compensation in accordance with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. It was established that the bringing of judges to civil and legal liability in Ukraine is regulated by such legislative documents as the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Explanatory Note to the European Charter on the Status of Judges (Model Code), the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges», the Law of Ukraine «On the procedure for compensation for harm caused to a citizen by illegal actions of bodies carrying out operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecutors and courts», Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of certain provisions of Article 2, paragraph two of clause II «Final and transitional provisions» of the Law of Ukraine «On measures to legislatively ensure the reform of the pension system», Article 138 of the Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges» (the case on changes in the conditions for the payment of pensions and monthly living known salaries of judges lagging behind in these), the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights».

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document