KEPASTIAN HUKUM KEPEMILIKAN SURAT IZIN GANGGUAN BIDANG USAHA MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT ATAU MUSIC STADIUM DITINJAU BERDASARKAN PERATURAN GUBERNUR NOMOR 101 TAHUN 2013 (STUDI PUTUSAN: PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 2430K/PDT/2018)

One of legal issue of business licensing occur in the Supreme Court Decision Number 2430 K/Pdt/2018 which basically contains a civil dispute between the Management of PT Wahana Agung Indonesia Propertindo (WAIP) with PT Mata Elang International Stadium (MEIS). In the judge's legal considerations, PT MEIS was declared default because during the holding of the concert / event in the room rented from PT WAIP, they still didn/t have the nuisance permit. But in their legal considerations, the Panel of Judges wasn’t careful enough in determining the legal basis. Then how is the legal certainty regarding to the possession of the nuisance permit in the field of music stadium business? How does the Government play a role in a way to overcoming uncertainty in the aspects of business licensing nowadays? To answer both questions, the author uses a normative research method, supported by statute approach and case approach. Legal certainty has not been achieved because there is an inaccuracy because the Panel of Judges didn’t consider the Governor Regulation of the Jakarta Special Capital Region Number 101 of 2013 which is an implementation instruction from Regional Regulation of the Jakarta Special Capital Region Number 15 of 2011. wherein the Governor Regulation of the Jakarta Special Capital Region Number 101 of 2013 further stipulates the terms of business locations that require a nuisance permit and concerning the nuisance criteria referred to in both of the legal regulations, and when referring to the provisions regarding the business location and the nuisance criteria referred to, PT MEIS doesn’t require an nuisance permit in conducting their business.

Download Full-text

Analisis Yuridis terhadap Kasus Gugatan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum atas Ketidakabsahan Peralihan Hak Milik Benda Bergerak (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1081/K/PDT/2018)

Kosmik Hukum ◽

10.30595/kosmikhukum.v20i1.6433 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

pp. 21

Author(s):

Fathalya Laksana

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Research Method ◽

Secondary Data ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Civil Code ◽

Court Decision ◽

Analysis Method ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Analytical Research ◽

The Law

The legal requirements are regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). If the valid conditions of the promise are not fulfilled, then the law that results is that the agreement can be canceled or null and void. In the Court's practice contained in the Supreme Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018, there was a sale and purchase agreement between the Plaintiff's husband and the Defendant, the sale and purchase agreement was made by the Plaintiff's partner without the consent of the Plaintiff as his legal wife. Supreme Court Decision No. 1081K / PDT / 2018 stated that the sale and purchase agreement was invalid and null and void. Apart from that, in its decision, the Defendant's UN Supreme Court had committed an illegal act. The research method used is a normative juridical approach using secondary data obtained from literature studies, namely statutory regulations, legal theories, and the opinions of leading legal scholars. This research uses descriptive analytical research specifications that describe the regulations that are in accordance with legal theories that oversee the implementation practices of the problems under study. The data analysis method used is qualitative normative method. Based on the research results, it can be denied that the sale and purchase agreement in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018 is not legally valid. The agreement does not fulfill the validity requirements of the agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely halal skills and causes because it violates Article 36 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law No. 1 of 1974 resulting in the sale and purchase agreement to be null and void.Keywords: Buying and Selling, Acts against the Law, Agreement, Marriage, Collective Property

Download Full-text

Analisis Pemberian Wasiat Wajibah terhadap Ahli Waris Beda Agama Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018

Jurnal Suara Hukum ◽

10.26740/jsh.v1n2.p172-185 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 172

Author(s):

Alip Pamungkas Raharjo ◽

Elok Fauzia Dwi Putri

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Research Method ◽

Islamic Law ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Before And After ◽

The Republic ◽

A Share

In Article 171 letter (c) Instruction of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1991 concerning Compilation of Islamic Law affirms that the rights of non muslim heirs to the inheritance of Islamic heirs do not obtain inheritance from the inheritor's inheritance. However, in its development because it felt unfair, the Supreme Court through The Supreme Court Decision Number 368.K / AG / 1995 provided a way for joint cooperation of different inheritance through a wasiat wajibah. But in its development, this provision was changed again by a landmark decision from the Supreme Court, namely through the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018 because there was a change in the value of justice in the community. The research method used normative research with constitutional approach, conceptual approach and case approach. This study aims to explain the rights of non muslim heirs to the inheritance of Islamic heirs before and after the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018. The results showed that prior to the Supreme Court Decision Number 331 K / AG / 2018, heirs of non muslim religions were given a share of inheritance in the form of a wasiat wajibah for ¾ of the inheritance inheritance. Post the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018, the amount of wasiat wajibah will change to ¼ from the inheritor's inheritance.

Download Full-text

SENGKETA HAK GARAP DAN PENGUASAAN TANAH DI KALICARI SEMARANG (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 153 PK/TUN/2013)

NOTARIUS ◽

10.14710/nts.v12i1.23775 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 99

Author(s):

Pinanti Mega Dewanti ◽

Sukirno Sukirno

Keyword(s):

Arable Land ◽

Land Rights ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Legal Certainty ◽

Land Dispute ◽

Legal Writing ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Develop Land ◽

The Government

A dispute between the Plaintiff and the Government of Semarang City on the issuance of the Decree of Mayor of Semarang, Number: 143/285/2002 on Determination of Land of Former Bengkok and Building of Asset of Kelurahan Being Semarang City Government's Asset. The problems that arise in this writing is how the legitimacy of the release of land rights and compensation claim based on the Supreme Court Decision Number 153 PK / TUN / 2013 whether has provided legal certainty for the owner. The conclusion of this legal writing, that the Panel of Judges is negligent in observing the validity of arable land in deciding cases that give the decision of the cancellation of the Decree of Mayor of Semarang Number 143/285/2002 dated September 12, 2002, concerning Determination of Land of Bengkok and Building of Asset of Village to Government's Asset Semarang City because Ny. Murdyaningsih has not been able to prove the origin of the land that became the case according to the prevailing laws and regulations. Keywords: Land Dispute, Right to Develop Land and Mastery Land. Abstrak Sengketa antara Penggugat dengan Pemerintah Kota Semarang atas di terbitkannya Surat Keputusan Walikota Semarang, Nomor: 143/285/2002 tentang Penetapan Tanah Bekas Bengkok dan Bangunan Aset Kelurahan Menjadi Aset Pemerintah Kota Semarang. Permasalahan yang timbul dalam penulisan ini adalah bagaimana keabsahan pelepasan hak dan ganti kerugian tanah garapan berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 153 PK/TUN/2013 apakah telah memberikan kepastian hukum bagi pemiliknya. Kesimpulan dari penulisan hukum ini, bahwa Majelis Hakim lalai dalam mencermati mengenai keabsahan tanah garapan dalam memutus perkara yang memberi putusan pembatalan Surat Keputusan Walikota Semarang Nomor 143/285/2002 tanggal 12 September 2002, tentang Penetapan Tanah Bekas Bengkok dan Bangunan Aset Kelurahan Menjadi Aset Pemerintah Kota Semarang karena Ny. Murdyaningsih belum dapat membuktikan asal-usul tanah yang menjadi perkara sesuai ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Kata Kunci: Sengketa Tanah, Hak Garap dan Penguasaan.

Download Full-text

Sistem Utang Piutang Pupuk Dibayar Gabah di Jember Perspektif Fiqih Muamalah dan Hukum Positif

rechtenstudent ◽

10.35719/rch.v1i3.37 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 1 (3) ◽

pp. 285-292

Author(s):

Siti Muhlisah

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Research Method ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Accounts Receivable ◽

Positive Law ◽

Accounts Payable ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Principle Of Justice ◽

Descriptive Qualitative

Discussing about debt and credit is not foreign to everyone's ears. Accounts receivable is an agreement between one party and another with the agreed object and will be returned within a certain time as agreed. Debt and credit is a form of muamalah which is ta'awun (please help). The fact is that many debts and receivables are not following sharia and law in Indonesia. This study aims to determine and analyze how the practice of fertilizer receivables is paid with grain from the perspective of Fiqh Muamalah and Positive Law. The research method used is descriptive qualitative. The results of this study found that according to Fiqih Muamalah, the fertilizer receivable payable system is paid with grain that the transaction is allowed, but every addition in fertilizer receivables is paid with grain required by the creditor is usury. The practice of the fertilizer debt system being paid with grain also contradicts the principles of the contract, one of which is the divine principle, the principle of justice, and the principle of writing. In the Positive Law, the fertilizer accounts payable system is paid with the grain if it refers to the Supreme Court decision dated December 4, 1975, No. 804 K / Sip / 1973 principal debt plus 6% interest, because 6% interest is the usual interest at the time the agreement was held. And must be stipulated in writing. Meanwhile, the interest in the debt and credit is more than 70%.

Download Full-text

KONSEP PEMBUKTIAN SEDERHANA DALAM PERKARA KEPAILITAN

Jurnal Yudisial ◽

10.29123/jy.v10i3.264 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 331

Author(s):

Nelson Kapoyos

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Simple Proof ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Research Method ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Research Problem ◽

Civil Code ◽

Court Decision ◽

Legal Research ◽

The Supreme Court

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini mempermasalahkan pembuktian sederhana dalam proses kepailitan terkait kewajiban pemberitahuan adanya peralihan piutang (cessie) kepada debitur. Putusan Nomor 02/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2014/PN.Niaga.Mks telah mengabulkan permohonan kreditur cessionaries yang dikuatkan oleh Putusan Nomor 19 K/PDT.SUSPAILIT/2015, namun pada upaya hukum peninjauan kembali majelis hakim justru mengabulkan permohonan peninjauan kembali dengan alasan pembuktian sederhana terhadap cessie belum diberitahukan kepada debitur secara resmi melalui juru sita pengadilan. Rumusan masalah penelitian ini ialah bagaimana konsep pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan terhadap kewajiban pemberitahuan pengalihan piutang (cessie) pada pertimbangan majelis hakim peninjauan kembali Nomor 125 PK/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2015. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif. Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah konsep pembuktian sederhana di dalam pembuktian kepailitan tidak ada kewajiban pemberitahuan secara resmi melalui juru sita pengadilan karena Pasal 613 BW tidak mengaturnya, pemberitahuan hanya diajukan secara tertulis dan bisa kapanpun diberitahukan kepada debitur. Kata kunci: kepailitan, pembuktian sederhana, cessie.ABSTRACTThis analysis intends to question the simple proof in bankruptcy proceedings related to the transition of receivable notification obligation (cessie) to the debtors. The Commercial Court Decision Number 02/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2014/PN.Niaga.Mks has granted the petitions of creditor’s cessionary which was strengthened by the Supreme Court Decision Number 19 K/PDT.SUSPAILIT/2015, but on the judicial review attempt, the Supreme Court has granted the petition for the judicial review on the grounds that a simple proof of cessie has not been officially disclosed to the debtor through a court bailiff. The formulation of this research problem is how the concept of simple proof in bankruptcy proceeding to the obligation of notification of transfer of receivables (cessie) in the consideration of Court Decision Number 125 PK/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2015. The research method of this analysis is normative legal research. This analysis resolves thatin the simple proof concept of the bankruptcy proceedings, there is no obligation of official notice through the court bailiff because it is not set on Article 613 of Indonesia Civil Code Law, so the notification is only submitted in writing and may at any time be notified to the debtor. Keywords: bankruptcy, simple proof, cessie.

Download Full-text

PEMBAGIAN HARTA BERSAMA DITINJAU DARI ASAS KEPASTIAN HUKUM (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 266K/AG/2010)

JURNAL HUKUM DAS SOLLEN ◽

10.32520/das-sollen.v1i4.329 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 1 (4) ◽

Author(s):

Darmi Wati

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Islamic Law ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Legal Certainty ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Joint Property

Shared assets are abattoir items obtained during marriage. If the divorce of the joint property is divided in two, except for the marriage agreement. This is regulated in Article 97 Compilation of Islamic Law as a basis for legal certainty. But the fact is that the sharing of the collective shares is not in accordance with Article 97 Compilation of Islamic Law, namely the division is not divided in two as occurred in the Supreme Court decision Number 266K / AG / 2010, namely the Plaintiff / Cassation Respondent ex-husband gets ¼ (one quarter). This is the object of the author's research by reviewing the principles of legal certainty. Keywords : Sharing of Joint Assets, Principle of Legal Certainty

Download Full-text

Analisis Pemberian Wasiat Wajibah terhadap Ahli Waris Beda Agama Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018

Jurnal Suara Hukum ◽

10.26740/1.jsh.2019.1.2.4865 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 172

Author(s):

Alip Pamungkas Raharjo ◽

Elok Fauzia Dwi Putri

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Research Method ◽

Islamic Law ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Before And After ◽

The Republic ◽

A Share

Download Full-text

Implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision Regarding the Execution of Fiduciary Guarantees and Inclusion of Default Clauses in Indonesia

International Journal of Criminology and Sociology ◽

10.6000/1929-4409.2021.10.05 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 33-38

Author(s):

Siti Malikhatun Badriyah ◽

◽

R. Suharto ◽

Marjo Marjo ◽

Retno Saraswati ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Method ◽

Civil Law ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Legal Regulations ◽

Legal Certainty ◽

Legal Norms ◽

Legal Principles

The existence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, made problems in society related to the implementation of the fiduciary guarantee execution. This study aims to determine and analyze the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The research method used is normative juridical by conducting document studies of legal principles, legal regulations and legal norms in Indonesia and interviews with civil law experts. The results showed that the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, caused disagreements in its implementation. Prior to the Constitutional Court Decision, the execution of the Fiduciary Guarantee was based on the Fiduciary Guarantee Law, if the debtor in default, the Fiduciary Recipient can execute on the basis of the fiduciary recipient's own power to sell the object of fiduciary security, but with a Constitutional Court Decision it must go through a court. This creates confusion for creditors and is against the principle of material security. This is detrimental to creditors, because creditors cannot immediately sell their own fiduciary collateral objects if the debtor defaults. This phenomenon can lead to a lack of legal certainty and legal protection for fiduciary recipients and contradicts the nature of fiduciary guarantees which should have strong guarantee rights and are easy to implement.

Download Full-text