scholarly journals Analisis Upah Proses Berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 37/PUU-XI/2011, Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2015 dan Surat Edaran Nomor 3 Tahun 2018 (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial Jakarta Pusat Nomor 255/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017 jo. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 499 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2018).

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1193
Author(s):  
Jesslyn Gressella ◽  
Andari Yurikosari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Labor Agreement ◽  
Circular Letter ◽  
The Law

This study has title "Analysis of Process Wage Based on Constitutional Court Decision Number 37 / PUU-XI / 2011, Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 3 Year 2015 and Circular Letter Number 3 Year 2018 (Case Study of Central Jakarta Industrial Relations Court Decision Number 255 / Pdt.Sus -PHI / 2017 Jo. Supreme Court Decision Number 499 K / Pdt.Sus-PHI / 2018). This study uses the type of normative legal research or literature on labor agreement theory and legal certainty theory. The approach used in this research is the law approach which is completed with interview data. The wage of process given to workers in the discussion of this study is not in accordance with statutory regulations. The judge decides the case based on the Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 3 Year 2015 and Circular Letter Number 3 Year 2018. In the author's opinion, this case study can be the application of the law regarding process wages to be uncertain and unfair for workers. The application of process wages should be appropriate and fair in order to create legal certainty in the Industrial Relations Court

scholarly journals AXIOLOGY ARBITRATION VALUE RULING IN THE CASE SETTLEMENT TRADE (Case Study Decision Of Supreme Court Number : 199 K / Pdt.Sus / 2012)

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 228
Author(s):  
Safrin Salam
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Opportunity Loss ◽  
Legal Grounds

The existence of the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI) in Indonesia that still exist to this day is one manifestation of diakomodasinya patterns of dispute resolution outside the court. Legal Considerations Application Reasons Cancellation Arbitral Article 70 of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Supreme Court Decision No. 199 K / Pdt.Sus / 2012 Relation Ensure Legal Certainty In the disputing parties are legal considerations of the cancellation decision was not all acceptance or rejection of the cancellation request arbitration decision based on legal grounds contained in Article 70 of Law No. 30 of 1999. Act No. 30 of 1999 on the ADR needs to be improved, especially the explanation of article 60 and article 70 which could lead to legal uncertainty for justice seekers among businesses in the dispute and the opportunity loss of trust businesses to resolve the dispute out of court through arbitration institution (the Arbitration Tribunal Ad-Hoc, BANI, etc.)

scholarly journals ANALISIS YURIDIS TUMPANG TINDIH HPL PELINDO II YANG TERBIT DI ATAS HGB PT RAI (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI NOMOR: 392PK/PDT/2020) [JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF THE OVERLAPPING RIGHT TO MANAGE ISSUED ON TOP OF PT RESOURCES ALAM INDONESIA'S RIGHT TO BUILD (CASE STUDY ON SUPREME COURT DECISION NO 392 PK/PDT/2020)]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Astrid Unggul Pawestri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Conceptual Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia ◽  
Research Show ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Overlapping and problems arise because of the issuance of the certificate of management rights Number 91/Sungai Selincah in the name of PT Pelindo II.  That HPL certificate overlaps HGB certificates owned by PT RAI, HGB certificate Number 100/Sei Selincah and HGB certificate Number 101/Desa Sei Selincah. BPN issued PT Pelindo II's HPL certificate on January 6, 2012. With the issuance of the HPL certificate of PT Pelindo II, which overlaps HGBs of PT RAI, BPN was unable to extend PT RAI's HGB certificate for those two plots of land previously owned by PT RAI, prompting PT RAI to file a lawsuit in court. The research employs a normative juridical research methodology that includes a statutory analysis, a case study, and a conceptual analysis. Findings of the research show that the issuance of PT Pelindo II's HPL certificate was following applicable regulations (UUPA, UUCK, PP 24/1997, and PP 18/2021), and no provisions were violated. However, PT Pelindo II's HPL Certificate that overlaps the PT RAI's HGB has administrative defects. Regarding the judge's decisions and legal considerations, the District and High Court's was not following the provisions of Article 27 paragraph (1) PP 40/1996, which was still applicable at that time. The Cassation and Judicial Review's decisions in Supreme Court demonstrate the cancellation of the District and High Court's decision due to the judge's negligence in applying the law as specified in the applicable laws and regulations.<p>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT:</p><p>Terdapatnya tumpang tindih dan permasalahan atas penerbitan sertifikat Hak Pengelolaan Nomor 91/Sungai Selincah seluas 23.500 m² milik PT Pelindo II yang mana sertifikat HPL tersebut bersinggungan dan tumpang tindih dengan sertifikat HGB Nomor 100/Sei Selincah dan sertifikat HGB Nomor 101/Desa Sei Selincah milik PT RAI. Atas terbitnya sertifikat HPL PT Pelindo II di atas HGB PT RAI tersebut BPN tidak bisa menerbitkan perpanjangan sertifikat HGB PT RAI atas kedua bidang tanah tersebut yang pada akhirnya mendorong PT RAI untuk mengajukan gugatan ke pengadilan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian mengenai penerbitan HPL atas nama PT Pelindo II yang diterbitkan di atas tanah yang sudah terdapat sertifikat HGB atas nama PT RAI ditinjau dari UUPA, UUCK, PP 24/1997, dan PP 18/2021 menunjukkan telah sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku dan tidak ada ketentuan yang dilanggar. Namun demikian, penerbitan Sertifikat HPL PT Pelindo II di atas HGB PT RAI tersebut memiliki cacat administratif. Selanjutnya mengenai amar dan pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri tingkat pertama dan tingkat banding di Pengadilan Tinggi tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 27 ayat (1) PP 40/1996 yang masih berlaku saat itu. Pada putusan tingkat kasasi dan peninjauan kembali di Mahkamah Agung menunjukkan adanya pembatalan atas putusan putusan Pengadilan Negeri tingkat pertama dan tingkat banding di Pengadilan Tinggi dikarenakan adanya kekhilafan hakim dalam menerapkan hukum sebagaimana ketentuan peraturan-perundangan.</p>

Discrimination in Seniority Systems: A Case Study

ILR Review ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryellen R. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
White Women ◽  
White Men ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Black Workers ◽  
Formal Rules

According to the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Teamsters v. U.S., seniority systems that have disparate impacts on women and black workers as compared to white men are not necessarily illegal. This paper uses a case study to examine what constitutes illegally discriminatory treatment in a seniority system in light of the Teamsters decision and subsequent rulings by federal courts. The empirical findings strongly suggest that as of 1976, at least with respect to promotions, the seniority system in the plant studied illegally discriminated against white women and black workers. The author concludes that the methodology used in this case can be applied more generally to other establishments where formal rules and organizational structures are important in shaping promotion opportunities.

scholarly journals The Urgency of Trademark Registration for Business Actors (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No 575 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020 Between Ruben Samuel Onsu vs PT Ayam Geprek Benny Sujono)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Nurhani Fithriah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Business People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trademark Registration

Brand registration is very important for business people. A brand is one of the distinguishing entities between the business activities of business actors. The problem occurs when business actors already have a trademark which is then well known in the community but in fact they have not registered the trademark, as experienced by Ruben Samuel Onsu with his Geprek chicken business. However, in its development, it turns out that there are other business actors using the same mark but have registered the mark. This research was conducted using a normative method through a statutory approach and concepts. This research examines the Supreme Court's decision rejecting the appeal from Ruben Samuel Onsu and analyzes the urgency and procedures for trademark registration. Based on the research results, trademark law in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The terms and procedures for application for registration of a mark are regulated in Article 4 - Article 8 and further regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. registration of a mark and being recognized as the legal owner of the mark and rights to the mark are obtainedafter the mark is registered. Ruben Onsu's Bensu mark was declared invalid because Ruben Onsu was not the first party to register the mark, and the Supreme Court decided to cancel all trademark applications made by Ruben Onsu.

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 terhadap Praktek Persekongkolan Tender

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Titis Anindyajati
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Law

Pada pokoknya, persekongkolan tender merupakan salah satu bentuk persekongkolan yang dilarang UU Nomor 5/1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat dan juga menjadi perkara yang paling sering diproses KPPU. Namun baik secara teoritis maupun praktik menimbulkan permasalahan yaitu karena adanya pemaknaan yang bias akan frasa “pihak lain” dalam Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999. Hal inilah yang melatarbelakangi adanya pengujian Pasal 22 ke MK. Dalam penulisan ini yang dibahas yaitu bagaimana pengaturan persekongkolan tender menurut peraturan perundang-undangan, bagaimanakah implikasi yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 tentang pengujian Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999 serta bagaimana analisis hukum terhadap pertimbangan hukum Putusan MK tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian yuridis normatif dimana obyek penelitian ini adalah peraturan perundang-undangan dan Putusan MK. Dalam hal ini Penulis menyimpulkan, yaitu, Pertama, persekongkolan tender yang merupakan suatu bentuk kerja sama antara dua pihak atau lebih untuk menguasai pasar yang bersangkutan dan/atau memenangkan peserta tender yang mengakibatkan terjadinya persaingan usaha tidak sehat diatur secara eksplisit dalam Pasal 1 angka 8 dan Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999 serta Peraturan KPPU Nomor 2/2010, Kedua, Implikasi yuridis Putusan MK Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 bermanfaat untuk menjamin kepastian hukum dan keadilan bagi para pihak seperti pengusaha utamanya masyarakat. Untuk itu, perlu adanya harmonisasi antara satu peraturan dengan peraturan lainnya, pengujian UU terhadap UUD terkait pengaturan persekongkolan tender dalam persaingan usaha tidak sehat ataupun revisi terhadap UU Nomor 5/1999.Principally, tender conspiracy is one form of conspiracy that subjected by the Law No. 5/1999 on The Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, and also as a type of case that frequently occurred and processed by the KPPU. However, in theory, and in practice, there are some issues that plague the regulation, because of the occurrence of bias and unclear interpretation of the phrases “other parties” contained in Article 22 of Law 5/1999. This interpretation issue then became the background in the petition for review of Article 22 to the Constitutional Court. This paper mainly discussed the regulation of tender conspiracy according to the existing Law, and also to study the juridical implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XIV/2016 concerning the review of Article 22 Law 5/1999. This paper also delves into the legal analysis of the court considered in the aforementioned Decision. This paper utilized the means of normative juridical research methodology, with the existing regulations and Constitutional Court Decision as the object of research. In the paper, the writer concludes that, first, tender conspiracy is a form of cooperation between one party or more to control particular market and/or to determine the awardees of tenders which may cause unfair business competition explicitly regulated in Article 1 number 8 and Article 22 Law 5/1999 and also the KPPU Regulation Number 2/2010, second, the juridical implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XIV/2016 was necessary in order to guarantee the equitable legal certainty and fairness toward all parties especially business practising citizens. Thus, there is a necessity to achieve harmony among these regulations, which can be obtained through the judicial review of laws against the Constitution concerning the regulations of tender conspiracy and by means of legislative revision toward Law 5/1999.

scholarly journals Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Marwan Hsb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

Article 24C Section (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia authorizes the Constitutional Court to reviewthe law against the constitution. However, when referring to the hierarchy of legislation, the law has the equal hierarchy with government regulation in lieu of law. It makes a question whether the Constitutional Court truly has the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law against the constitution? Based on the research in this paper, it was found that by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court stated that the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law under the authority of the Constitutional Court because the substance of government regulation in lieu of law is similar with the substance of law. So, the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law materially. Such decision is correct; the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law in material because the substance is similar with the law. While formally reviewing should be the authority of the Supreme Court due to government regulation in lieu of law formally is in the form of government regulation

scholarly journals Tax Debt in the Bankruptcy Dispute: Industries Badja Garuda Inc. v.s. Tax Office of Medan Belawan

Rechtsidee ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rilda Murniati ◽  
Richmond Cosmas Tobias
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
Study Type

The biggest problem for the debtor who is the business actor is his inability to repay the loan to the creditors in case the business activities have problems. The inability to pay may result in the debtor being petitioned for bankruptcy by the creditor or the debtor himself. Curator as the party who performs the management and the settlement of all debtor debts is obliged to make a bill list based on the nature and rights of the bills of creditors as stipulated in Act Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts (the Law 37/2004). The problem that occurred in the case of Bankruptcy of Industries Badja Garuda Inc. (IBG Inc.) that the Tax Office of Medan Belawan (Tax Office) made a legal effort against the list of tax bills made by the curator of IBG Inc. which set Tax Office as the concurrent creditor through renvoi procedures to the Court Commerce so that the Tax Office loses its precedent over tax debt as stipulated in the Law of Commercial Court refuses the request so that the cassation law is also applied to the Supreme Court which in its decision strengthen the decision of the District Court. For that reason, there is a review effort but the Supreme Court in its sentence Number 45 PK/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2016 still reinforces the previous verdict. This research is normative research with descriptive type and problem approach applied is normative applied with case study type of court decision. The result of the research indicates that the Tax Office has lost its predecessor right as regulated in Article 21 Paragraph (4) in Act Number 16 Year 2009 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures (the Law 16/2009) on the status of tax debt of IBG Inc.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE PARTIES IN CREDIT AGREEMENT WITH FIDUCIARY GUARANTEE AFTER THE ISSUENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
Celina Tri Siwi Kristiyanti
Keyword(s):  
Economic Value ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
Credit Agreement ◽  
Wheeled Vehicles ◽  
Legal Consequences

Fiduciary Guarantee Law is one of the material guarantees specifically regulated in Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Guarantees that realizes the public's need for legal certainty but guaranteed objects still have economic value.  Article 15 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees is felt burdensome to debtors, because creditors make forced efforts to take fiduciary guarantee objects in the form of 2-wheeled and 4-wheeled vehicles. The purpose of this study is (1) Finding and analyzing the basis of the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 (2) Finding and explaining the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 on legal protection for parties to credit agreements with fiduciary guarantees (3) Finding and explaining constraints on Financial Service Institutions (LJK) in the implementation of constitutional court decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019.  The research method used is juridical normative and empirical with a case study approach so that achievements are more comprehensive related to the principle of legal protection for parties in fiduciary guarantees. The result obtained that since the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the executive confiscation cannot be done directly by creditors must go through a court decision. The executorial confiscation in Article 15 of Law Number 42 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee has been contrary to Article 1 (3), Article 27 (1), Article 28D (1), Article 28G (1) and Article 28H (4) of the Constitution of 1945. It takes good faith from the parties so that the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 guarantees justice, legal certainty and provides legal protection. An agreement is required in accordance with the principle of freedom of proportionate contract, there is a balance of position between the debtor and the creditor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document