scholarly journals IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN INDONESIAN GENERAL COURTS(BASED ON THE DECREE OF THE DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-434
Author(s):  
Haposan Sahala Raja Sinaga
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Director General ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Qualitative Descriptive ◽  
The Republic

The shift in punishment in the criminal justice system prioritizes justice for victims and perpetrators of criminal acts in addition to alternative punish- ments such as social work and others carried out with a restorative justice approach. Focusing on the process  of  direct  criminal  responsibility  from the perpetrator to the victim and society, if the perpetrator and victim and  the community whose rights have been violated feel that justice has been achieved through collective deliberation efforts, punishment can be avoided. The perpetrator is not the main object of the restorative justice approach,   but the sense of justice and conflict recovery itself are the main objects. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, on December 22 2020, through the Director-General of the General Courts Agency, has made Decree Number: 1691/DJU/SK/PS.00/12/2020 concerning the Enforcement of Guidelines for the Implementation of Restorative Justice in the Indonesian General Courts. With the normative juridical research method, with the nature of qualitative descriptive research, by examining secondary data obtained through the Decree of the Director-General of the General Courts of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 1691/DJU/SK/PS.00/12/2020 and other related regulations which has relevance to the implementation of restorative justice in the Indonesian general courts’ environment. The results of the research show the implementation of restorative justice in the Indonesian general courts, as stated in the Decree of the Director-General of the Supreme Courts Number: 1691/DJU/SK/PS.00/12/2020, which must apply and be applied by all district courts in Indonesia, especially in terms of case settlement in action. Minor offenses, child cases, women in conflict with the law and nar- cotics cases. The existence of alternative case resolution through restorative justice can realize the principles of fast, simple and low cost with balanced justice.

scholarly journals Solusi Hukum Mengatasi Masalah Menumpuknya Perkara di Tingkat Kasasi Mahkamah Agung RI (Usulan Perubahan Kelima UUD RI Tahun 1945)

2017 ◽  
pp. 90-100
Author(s):  
Lufsiana
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Employment Opportunities ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

The accumulation of cases at the Cassation level of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia has not been resolved, even though there are internal rules that determine the deadline for case settlement for 250 days and the distribution of rooms in the environment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. violating the legal principle of the administration of simple, fast and low-cost justice has even opened the door of corruption, because justice seekers will try to accelerate to get a verdict on the case. This paper provides a legal solution to the problem, namely by forming a representative of the Supreme Court of Indonesia in every province in Indonesia and empowering the nation's children to become Supreme Court Justices (opening employment opportunities that are wide enough for legal professionals) by using the legislation approach.

scholarly journals Determination Of Legal Remedies For Civil Cases To Make The Principles Of Justice Simple, Fast And Lighting Cost

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Andrianantenaina Fanirintsoa Aime ◽  
Zulfikar Dori Ad’ha
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Republic

One of the principles in the justice system is justice that is simple, fast and low cost. In this regard, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) takes this matter seriously and responds to it by issuing a decree, namely TAP MPR No. VIII/MPR/2000 concerning the Annual Report of High State Institutions at the 2000 Annual Session of the People's Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia, which one of its substances recommends that the Supreme Court immediately resolve delinquent cases by increasing the number and quality of decisions and that the Supreme Court makes regulations to limit entry cassation case. With this principle, it is necessary to conduct a study regarding the application of these principles.

scholarly journals SOLUSI HUKUM MENGATASI MASALAH MENUMPUKNYA PERKARA DI TINGKAT KASASI MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI (Usulan Perubahan Kelima UUD RI Tahun 1945)

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Lufsiana Lufsiana
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Employment Opportunities ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

<p><em>The accumulation of cases at the Cassation level of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia has not been resolved, even though there are internal rules that determine the deadline for case settlement for 250 days and the distribution of rooms in the environment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. violating the legal principle of the administration of simple, fast and low-cost justice has even opened the door of corruption, because justice seekers will try to accelerate to get a verdict on the case. This paper provides a legal solution to the problem, namely by forming a representative of the Supreme Court of Indonesia in every province in Indonesia and empowering the nation's children to become Supreme Court Justices (opening employment opportunities that are wide enough for legal professionals) by using the legislation approach.</em><strong><em></em></strong></p>

scholarly journals SMALL CLAIM COURT : PRINCIPLE CONCRETIZATION IN LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 339
Author(s):  
Peni Rinda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Small Claim ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Simple Action ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Trial Evidence

The purpose of this research is to examine the provisions of civil procedural law in settling a lawsuit, to know the form of simple, fast, and low-cost concretization in simple lawsuit settlement. The research method uses the research object of simple, fast, and low-cost concretization in the settlement of a simple claim, normative juridical approach, the type of data used in this study is secondary data, which is sourced from the literature. Secondary data consists of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, legal material collection techniques carried out by literature and the internet, while the data analysis method is analyzed descriptively qualitatively. The results show that the provisions of civil procedural law in resolving claims in court so far have been using the basis of HIR, which do not differentiate between complicated and simple case examinations so that the time for settlement is the same. The process starting from submitting/registering a lawsuit, determining the day of trial by the head of the panel of judges, the parties being summoned appropriately, the trial, evidence to the verdict took a long time, namely 6 months (SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR No. 6 of 1992), so the Supreme Court issued SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR No. 2 of 2014 which provides a time limit for completing the case of five (5) months. The simple, fast, and low-cost principles of concretizing a small claim court can be seen in the settlement stage. Settlement of a simple lawsuit is divided into 4 (four) stages, namely: 1), preliminary stage, 2) stage of case examination, 3). The objection request stage and 4), the simple action decision stage. This simple lawsuit settlement process should take a maximum of 25 (twenty-five) days. The simple principle is embodied in the shortened settlement process mechanism, the fast principle is realized within 25 days of completion, a peace that does not use the provisions of Supreme Court rules No.1 of 2016, while the principle of low cost is realized from a simple settlement mechanism, will be affected by the cost of the case.

scholarly journals THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND THE NETHERLANDS COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Personnel Administration

The purpose of this study is to analyze the position and authority of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia and its comparison to the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary. This comparative study applied a normative juridical method. The data used in this study were secondary data. The collected data were then analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that Judicial Commission has an important position in judicial system in Indonesia so as structurally, its position is aligned with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Yet, functionally, its role is auxiliary to the judicial power institutions. Although the function of the Judicial Commission is related to judicial power, but the Judicial Commission is not an agent of judicial power, rather, it is an agency enforcing code of ethics of judges. Besides, the Judicial Commission is also not involved in the organization, personnel, administration and financial matters of judges. This condition is different from the Judicial Commission in European countries, such as the Netherlands. The Judicial Commission in the Netherlands (The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary) has an authority in the area of technical policy and policy making in the field of justice. The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary and other Judicial Commission in European countries generally have the authority in managing organization, budget and administration as well as in conducting promotions, transfers, and recruitments as well as imposing sanctions on judges. Thus, the Supreme Court only focuses on carrying out judicial functions and does not deal with administrative and judicial organization matters.�Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan memahami tentang kedudukan dan kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia serta perbandingannya dengan Komisi Yudisial Belanda. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu yuridis normatif dengan cara perbandingan (komparatif). Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder sedangkan analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian yaitu bahwa kedudukan Komisi Yudisial sangat penting, sehinggasecara struktural kedudukannya diposisikan sederajat dengan Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun demikian� secara fungsionalperannya bersifat penunjang (auxiliary) terhadap lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman. Komisi Yudisial meskipun fungsinya terkait dengan kekuasaan kehakiman tetapi bukan� pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman, melainkan lembaga penegak norma etik (code of ethics) dari hakim. Selain itu Komisi Yudisial juga tidak terlibat dalam hal organisasi, personalia, administrasi dan keuangan para hakim. Hal ini berbeda dengan Komisi Yudisial yang ada di negara Eropa misalnya Belanda. Komisi Yudisial di Belanda (Netherland Council for Judiciary) memiliki kewenangan pada area kebijakan teknis dan pembuatan kebijakan pada bidang peradilan.Komisi Yudisial Belanda dan di Eropa pada umumnya mempunyai kewenangan dalam hal mengelola organisasi, anggaran dan administrasi peradilan termasuk dalam melakukan promosi, mutasi, rekruitmen dan memberikan sanksi terhadap hakim. Mahkamah Agung hanya fokus melaksanakan fungsi peradilan yaitu mengadili

scholarly journals KEABSAHAN PEMBUKTIAN AKTA NOTARIS DI PENGADILAN SEBAGAI AKTA OTENTIK (Kajian Putusan No. 3591K/PDT/2018 )

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Hazar Kusmayanti ◽  
Yuda Anrova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Documentary Evidence ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

The evidentiary process requires evidence which is regulated under the civil procedure law in Article 164 HIR. Supreme Court decision number 3591K/Pdt/2018, discusses documentary evidence in the form of an agreement to transfer and transfer land rights. Mahakamah Agung’s decision number 3591K/Pdt/2018 states that the deed has no legal force because the land object of the dispute has been issued a legally valid right to build (HGB) certifi cate. The purpose of this paper is to fi nd out the legal considerations of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia regarding the validity related to positive law in Indonesia. The research method used is a normative juridical approach with research specifi cations in the form of descriptive analytical through secondary data obtained from literature studies. The data analysis method used is qualitative normative method. The conclusion was obtained that the deed of agreement of transfer and transfer of land rights as outlined in deed number 255 is legally valid because the agreement was made by fulfi lling the validity requirements of the agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, however the judge did not provide further explanation in the judge’s consideration regarding the validity of the letter.

scholarly journals The Relevance of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 in Efforts of State Losses Refund through Restorative Justice

Corruptio ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-146
Author(s):  
Niko Jaya Kusuma ◽  
Firganefi Firganefi ◽  
Muhammad Farid
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Main Element ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

The government has moved quickly to find a legal breakthrough related to reducing corruption in Indonesia. One of the efforts made by the government is through the Supreme Court to eradicate corruption is the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 concerning Guidelines for the Criminalization of Articles 2 and 3 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes. The consideration is that the imposition of a crime must be carried out with due regard for the certainty and proportionality of punishment to realize justice based on Pancasila and the Republic of Indonesia's 1945 Constitution. The objectives of the Supreme Court Regulation prioritize victim’s losses to be recovered. Moreover, the regulation proportional benefits in imposing penalties on criminal cases is compatible with the Restorative Justice approach. The restorative justice process is expected to be a legal breakthrough in restoring state finances, with dealing with Criminal Corruption Cases focusing on efforts to restore state finances as a whole rather than just prosecuting the perpetrators. Thus, the purpose of this research is to determine how relevant Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 are to efforts to recover state losses through restorative justice. This research employs both a normative and an empirical legal approach. Data were gathered through literature reviews and field studies and analyzed qualitatively. The present study confirmed the author's thoughts about the relevancies of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 to recover state losses through restorative justice as Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 play a role as a law enforcement's main element as a legal substance.

scholarly journals Judicial Review On The Authority Of National Institution In The Disbanding Of Community Organization Who Are Contradicting The 1945 Constitution Of The Republic Of Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Theo Negoro ◽  
Demson Tiopan ◽  
Haykal Hassanain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Community Organization ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Community Organizations ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Temporary Suspension ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

A community organization who contradicts the constitution will obviously disturb the common order and also disturb the system of Indonesian people and the nation itself, especially if such organization aims to change the Indonesian constitution. In Chapter XVII of Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Community Organization, later known as the Community Organization Law, it is stated that the disbanding of community organization must go through a procedure which consist of a warning, temporary suspension and then the disbanding by the court of law. In the Community Organization Law, the disbanding of an organization is done by a Judicative Institution which is through the decision of a judicial board. However, the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2017 regarding the Amendment on Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Community Organization, later known as the Government Regulation in Lieu of Community Organization Law states that the disbanding of a Community Organization contradicting the constitution only goes through the administrative admonition, temporary suspension of activity, and later the revocation of listed certification or the revocation of lawful institution status by the Government. The purpose of this research is to discover the authority of National Institution in disbanding Community Organization that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and also the authoritative obstacle faced by the national institution in dissolving such organizations. This research is a normative one which researched existing secondary data as a literary data supported by empirical data acquired from interview processes. Result of the research shows that the governmental institution which in this case are the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and Judicative Institution which in this case the Supreme Court has authority to disband Community Organizations that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia based on normative terms. However, in order to establish justice on said organization, the disbanding must be done by Judicative Institution so that it is more objective, but not by the Supreme Court, but by the Constitutional Court, due to the existence of Public Organizations being closely related to the Constitutional Right the way it is for the Political Parties. This research suggests that the disbanding of Community Organizations that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia should be done by the Constitutional Court, preceded by material check on the applicable positive law.   Keywords: Authority; National Institution; Community Organization; Constitution

scholarly journals SINKRONISASI PENANGANAN PERKARA PIDANA YANG DILAKUKAN OLEH SUBJEK HUKUM KORPORASI

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-89
Author(s):  
Wahyu Priyanka Nata Permana
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Secondary Data Sources ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Legal Subjects

Korporasi dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia telah ditempatkan sebagai subjek hukum tindak pidana yang dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana. Dalam praktek penanganan perkara pidana yang melibatkan korporasi sebagai subjek hukum masih menemui kendala dalam prosedur dan tata cara pemeriksaan korporasi sebagai pelaku tindak pidana, oleh karena itu Mahkamah Agung RI dan Jaksa Agung RI mengeluarkan pedoman penanganan perkara tindak pidana oleh korporasi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat sinkronisai antara Peraturan Mahkamah Agung RI dengan Peraturan Jaksa Agung RI. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kualitatif serta sumber data primer dan sekunder. Adapun hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya keseragaman dalam sebagian besar penangangan perkara pidana dalam Peraturan Jaksa Agung dengan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung, tetapi dalam pelaksanaan putusan pidana terhadap korporasi terdapat perbedaan ketika korporasi tidak membayar pidana denda dan harta korporasi tidak mencukupi untuk membayar denda tersebut. Terhadap hal-hal yang tidak diatur oleh Peraturan Jaksa Agung, berkenaan pemeriksaan terhadap korporasi dalam hal terjadi peleburan, penggabungan, pemisahan dan proses pembubaran korporasi telah termuat dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung.Corporations in the Indonesian legislation have been placed as criminal liability subject. In practice the handling of criminal cases involving corporations as legal subjects still encounters obstacles in the procedures and procedures of corporation examination as perpetrators of criminal acts, Therefore the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and the Attorney General of Indonesia issued guidelines for handling criminal cases by corporations. This study aims to see the synchronization between the Regulation of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Regulation. The research method used is normative juridical with qualitative approach as well as primary and secondary data sources. The results of the study indicate the existence of uniformity in the majority of criminal case handling in the Attorney General's Regulation with the Supreme Court Regulation, but in the execution of criminal verdict against the corporation there is a difference when the corporation does not pay the fine, and the corporation's property is not sufficient to pay the fine. In respect of matters not governed by the Attorney General's Regulation, concerning the examination of the corporation in the event of a merger, merger, separation and dissolution process of the corporation has been contained in the Supreme Court Regulation

scholarly journals PERBANDINGAN TUGAS MEDIATOR PADA PENGADILAN AGAMA INDONESIA DENGAN MAHKAMAH SYARIAH MALAYSIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Mardalena Hanifah
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Materials Processing ◽  
Mediation Process ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Religious Courts

Article 3 (2) Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures, Case Examining Judges in the consideration of a decision must state that the case has been pursued peace through mediation by mentioning the mediator. The court is not only tasked with examining, trying, and resolving cases it receives but also seeks to reconcile the parties. The court, which has been impressed as a law enforcement and justice institution, now appears as an institution that seeks peaceful solutions for the parties. The implementation of Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in Courts can be an eff ort to resolve civil disputes so that the settlement of civil disputes through mediation is the main choice. The research method used is normative legal research which includes research on legal principles which is very basic in guided law. The nature of the research carried out is descriptive, namely research that describes and explains in clear and detailed sentences. The data used are secondary data obtained from literature, consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Processing and data analysis used qualitative methods. The defi nition of mediation according to the Religious Courts in Indonesia and the Syari’ah Courts in Malaysia is the eff ort of the judges and courts to reconcile the parties so that the divorce process does not continue at the next trial. When the mediation process was carried out at the Indonesian Religious Court and the Syari’ah Court in Malaysia, there was a similarity, namely the mediation process was carried out at the fi rst trial and it was an obligation for the disputing parties in a divorce case to take mediation. according to the procedure for the appointment of mediators at the Indonesian Religious Courts and the Syari’ah Courts in Malaysia and the appointments of these mediators are both made by the judges. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document