scholarly journals PENERAPAN SANKSI DENDA TERHADAP KASUS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER JALAN NASIONAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 197
Author(s):  
Asmah Asmah
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Problem ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Business Opportunities ◽  
Legal Sanctions

ABSTRAKKomisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dalam Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013 menyatakan bahwa terlapor I, terlapor II, terlapor III, terlapor IV, terlapor V, terlapor VI, terlapor VII, terlapor VIII, terlapor IX, dan terlapor X terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan melakukan persekongkolan tender. Pengadilan Negeri Makassar menjatuhkan Putusan Nomor 238/PDT. SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS yang amarnya menolak permohonan keberatan para pemohon. Pada tingkat kasasi, Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan Nomor 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 menguatkan Putusan Nomor 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS dan Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013. Rumusan masalah penelitian ini adalah bagaimana analisis penerapan sanksi hukum dalam kasus persekongkolan tender pada Putusan Nomor 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 tingkat kasasi di Mahkamah Agung. Metode yang digunakan adalah normatif empiris. Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah pertimbangan hakim pada Putusan Nomor 430 K/PDT. SUS-KPPU/2015, yang pada dasarnya menguatkan Putusan Nomor 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS dan Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013 yang menyatakan bahwa terlapor telah terbukti memenuhi unsur-unsur Pasal 22 Undnag-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 terkait persekongkolan tender, sehingga merefleksikan nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang terkandung dalam proses penegakan hukum di bidang persaingan usaha, dengan memberikan jaminan kesempatan berusaha yang sama bagi setiap pelaku usaha melalui pencegahan terjadinya praktik persekongkolan tender.Kata kunci: sanksi, persekongkolan, KPPU.  ABSTRACTThe Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in Decision Number 09/KPPU-L/2013 states that reported party I up to reported party X were proven legally and convincingly to conduct tender conspiracy. Makassar District Court imposed Decision Number 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS that refused the petition of petitioners' objections. At the cassation level, the Supreme Court in Decision Number 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 reinforces Decision Number 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS and Decision Number 09/KPPU-L/2013. The formulation of this research problem is how the analysis of the application of legal sanctions in the case of tender conspiracy in Decision Number 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 cassation level in the Supreme Court. The method used in this analysis is normative. The conclusion of this research is that consideration of the judge on the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 that reinforces Decision Number 238/PDT.SUSKPPU/2014/PN.MKS and KPPU Decision Number 09/KPPU-L/2013, which states that the reported party has been proven to fulfill the elements of Article 22 of Law 5 of 1999 related to the tender conspiracy. So that it reflects, the values and norms that contained in the process of law enforcement in the field of business competition, by providing guarantees of equal business opportunities for each business actor through the prevention of the practice of tender conspiracy. Keywords: sanctions, conspiracy, KPPU.

scholarly journals Urgensi Pembentukan Peradilan Khusus Pemilu dalam rangka Mewujudkan Integritas Pemilu

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Iwan Rois ◽  
Ratna Herawati
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
District Court ◽  
Election Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
High Court ◽  
Provincial Level ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
General Elections

This study aims to analyze the need to establish a special election court which has the authority to solve various election law cases in order to realize elections with integrity; and analyzing the formulation of election special justice in order to realize the integrity of the election. The research method used is the method of normative legal research and the implementation of this research collects data from various sources in order to get an answer to the issues that have been formulated. The results of the study shows that  the purpose of the need for the formation of special judicial elections; First, to meet the growing demands of increasingly complex justice in society and more election law enforcement so as to realize the integrity of the elections; Second, To handle the election law cases quickly and simply so as to obey the integrity of the election. Formulation; First, the election special justice to be able to work quickly and simply in handling election law cases, domiciled at the central and provincial level, then entering the District Court or the High Court; Secondly, the Guidelines for the election special judicial law shall be based on Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 Year 2017 on Procedures for the Settlement of Administrative Offenses of the General Elections in the Supreme Court. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis perlunya membentuk peradilan khusus pemilu yang mempunyai kewenangan menyelesaikan berbagai perkara hukum pemilu agar terwujud pemilu yang berintegritas; dan menganalisis formulasi pembentukan peradilan khusus pemilu dalam rangka mewujudkan integritas pemilu. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah metode penelitian hukum normatif dan pelaksanaan dari penelitian ini mengumpulkan bahan hukum dari berbagai sumber guna mendapatkan suatu jawaban atas pokok-pokok permasalahan yang telah dirumuskan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tujuan perlunya pembentukan peradilan khusus pemilu; Pertama, Untuk memenuhi tuntutan perkembangan akan keadilan yang semakin kompleks dalam masyarakat dan lebih penegakan hukum pemilu sehingga mewujudkan integritas pemilu; Kedua, Untuk menangani perkara hukum pemilu dengan cepat dan sederhana sehingga mewudkan integritas pemilu. Formulasi; Pertama, Peradilan khusus pemilu agar bisa bekerja cepat dan sederhana dalam menangani perkara hukum pemilu, berkedudukan di tingkat pusat dan provinsi, selanjutnya masuk pada Pengadilan Negeri atau Pengadilan Tinggi; Kedua, Pedoman beracara pada peradilan khusus pemilu berdasarkan pada Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2017 tentang Tata Cara Penyelesaian Pelanggaran Administratif Pemilihan Umum Di Mahkamah Agung.

scholarly journals MENGGALI ‘ILLAT HUKUM PERBEDAAN AGAMA SEBAGAI HALANGAN WARIS

EMPIRISMA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Isna Wahyudi
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Legal Reason ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Religious Courts

Kompilasi Hukum Islam does not regulate interfaith inheritance distinctly. It only requires the testator and the heirs have the same religion. At court, judges of religious courts employ obligatory bequest (waṣiat wājibah) to divide inheritance to non-Muslim heirs, based on jurisprudence of the Supreme Court Number 368 K/AG/1995. As the result, different faith still become hindrance for Muslim and non-Muslim to inherit each other due to law enforcement without considering the legal reasoning (ratio legis) of the law. In this case, it is important to investigate the legal reason (ratio legis) of the hadith that prohibits the interfaith inheritance as this article tries to do. To do the investigation, the author employs Islamic legal theories (uṣūl fikih) and hermeneutics approach. As the result, the author comes to the conclusion that the ratio legis of the hadith that prohibits the interfaith inheritance is due to hostility and crime element and not due to different faith. Keywords: Interfaith Inheritance, Ratio Legis, Equality

scholarly journals Kekuatan Pembuktian Fotokopi Surat yang Tidak Dapat Dicocokkan dengan Aslinya dalam Perkara Perdata

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-352
Author(s):  
Devina Puspita Sari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
District Court ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
High Court ◽  
Original Letter ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Opposing Party ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Valid Evidence

The photocopy acceptable in the court if it matched with the original letter and the strength of that photocopy is the same as the original letter. However, sometimes the original letter has been lost so that it cannot be shown at trial. This paper discusses whether a photocopy that cannot be matched with the original letter can be accepted in the civil procedural law and if it can be accepted how the strength of it, then the discussion will look at the judge’s consideration in two cases related to the issue. The results of discussions are that photocopies that cannot be matched with the original letter can be accepted as evidence if the photocopy matches or is strengthened with other evidence, as the jurisprudence of Decision Nr. 112 K/Pdt/1996 and Decision Nr. 410 K/pdt/2004. The jurisprudence has been followed by similar cases, which is the Decision of the Central Jakarta District Court Nr. 164/Pdt.G/2004/PN.Jkt.Pst jo. Decision of The Jakarta High Court Nr. 234/Pdt/2005/PT.DKI jo. Decision of The Supreme Court Nr. 1498 K/Pdt/2006 which in this case a photocopy can be accepted because it is strengthened by the recognition of the opposing party and The Pontianak District Court Nr.52/Pdt.G/2003/PN.Ptk which received a photocopy because it was strengthened with  witness testimony. The photocopy has a free power of proof (depends on the judge’s assessment). The use and assessment of the strength of the photocopy cannot be independent, but must be linked to other valid evidence. Abstrak Fotokopi surat dapat diterima dalam persidangan apabila dapat dicocokkan dengan aslinya, dan kekuatan pembuktiannya sama seperti surat aslinya. Tulisan ini membahas, dalam hal surat aslinya tidak dapat ditunjukkan di persidangan, apakah fotokopi surat dapat diterima dalam pembuktian hukum acara perdata, dan, apabila dapat diterima, bagaimanakah kekuatan pembuktiannya. Artikel ini menunjukkan, fotokopi surat yang tidak dapat dicocokkan dengan aslinya dapat diterima sebagai alat bukti surat jika bersesuaian atau dikuatkan dengan alat bukti lain, sebagaimana Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 112 K/Pdt/1996 dan Putusan Nomor 410 K/pdt/2004 yang telah menjadi yurisprudensi. Yurisprudensi ini telah diikuti dalam perkara serupa, yaitu dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat Nomor 164/Pdt.G/2004/PN.Jkt.Pst jo. Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Jakarta Nomor 234/Pdt/2005/PT.DKI jo. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1498 K/Pdt/2006, di mana dalam perkara ini fotokopi surat dapat diterima karena dikuatkan dengan pengakuan pihak lawan. Demikian juga dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Pontianak Nomor 52/Pdt.G/2003/PN.Ptk, yang menerima fotokopi surat yang tidak dapat dicocokkan dengan aslinya karena dikuatkan dengan alat bukti keterangan saksi. Dengan demikian, fotokopi surat memiliki kekuatan pembuktian yang bebas, artinya diserahkan kepada penilaian hakim. Penggunaan dan penilaian kekuatan pembuktian fotokopi tersebut tidak dapat berdiri sendiri, tetapi harus dikaitkan dengan alat bukti lainnya yang sah.  

7 The Supreme Court and Northern Ireland

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dickson Brice
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Good Friday ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Good Friday Agreement

This chapter begins by considering the arms trial in the early 1970s and outlines the gist of the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973 before considering the challenge to that Agreement dealt with by the Supreme Court in the Boland case. There follows an examination of the Court’s views on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland in McGimpsey v Ireland, decided in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and on the constitutionality of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in the Riordan case. There is an analysis of Law Enforcement Commission’s report and of the Court’s views on resulting Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill 1975. The focus next moves to the shifting views of the Supreme Court on when it is appropriate to extradite suspected terrorists to Northern Ireland. Cases concerning Dominic McGlinchey, Séamus Shannon, Robert Russell, Dermot Finucane and Owen Carron are examined, as is the state of extradition law today.

scholarly journals KONFLIK INTERNAL PARTAI KEADILAN SEJAHTERA (PKS) TAHUN 2016: STUDI KASUS KONFLIK FAHRI HAMZAH DENGAN PIMPINAN DEWAN PENGURUS PUSAT (DPP) PKS

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Zaiyatul Akmar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
District Court ◽  
The South ◽  
Party Leadership ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Office

The internal PKS main conflict occurred in 2016 involving party cadres as well as members of the DPR RI in the 2014-2019 period, namely Fahri Hamzah with PKS Leaders. The conflict between Fahri Hamzah and the PKS Leader is not an individualistic conflict but also a factional one. Conflicts that occur due to dismissal carried out by PKS Leaders to Fahri Hamzah is driven by the fact that the PKS leaders do not comply with the party leadership and violate the party's AD / ART( basic rules). The results of this study are the conflicts that occurred between Fahri Hamzah and PKS Leaders not only concerning the existence of factions in PKS but also the struggle for power of political office in the party. So in this case PKS failed in managing internal conflict and also failed to mediate to reach a consensus. The legal approach to sue fahri Hamzah, but was then won by Fahri Hamzah in the South Jakarta District Court, DKI Jakarta Court, and the Supreme Court, has shown us that there is a serious problem in PKS internal consolidation.  

American Perspectives on Self-Incrimination and the Compelled Production of Evidence

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-242
Author(s):  
Mark Berger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Intimate Relation ◽  
Government Authority

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Boyd decision in 1886 recognised an intimate relation between the privilege against self-incrimination and the restrictions on search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment and created a virtually impenetrable barrier to government demands that a suspect or defendant be compelled to produce evidence against himself. However, since that time the Supreme Court has progressively restricted the scope of Fifth Amendment protection in relation to the compelled production of evidence. This has been achieved by requiring all citizens to appear before grand juries; by denying Fifth Amendment protection to entities; by holding that the compelled production of evidence does not breach the Fifth Amendment unless the very act of production is self-incriminatory; and by denying the privilege in relation to required records. The Supreme Court's stance reflects a recognition of the complexity of contemporary law enforcement problems and may be seen as an attempt to balance the state's interest in the successful prosecution of crime against the citizen's interest in being free from state intrusion. The effect of the Supreme Court's reforms has been to broaden government authority to compel offenders to assist in their own prosecutions whilst limiting Fifth Amendment protection to incrimination through the accused's own testimony or its equivalent.

Some New Emphases in Extradition Case Law

1981 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.Z. Feller
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Of Israel

In Azen v. State of Israel, the Supreme Court heard the appeal of a person who had been declared extraditable to France for offences of stealing by an agent and fraud, committed, according to the request for extradition, in France. One of the pleas raised against the decision of the District Court, in which Azen was declared extraditable, was that the specialty limitation was not guaranteed in the Extradition Treaty between Israel and France, as required by sec. 17 (a) of the Israeli Extradition Law, 1954. This section states unequivocally that —A wanted person shall not be extradited unless it has been ensured, by an agreement with the requesting State, that he will not be detained, tried or punished in that State for another offence committed prior to his extradition;whereas in art. 17 of the said Treaty, specialty is guaranteed in the following words: L'individu qui aura été délivré ne pourra ni être poursuivi ou jugé en sa présence ni être, détenu …i.e. under the Treaty, the specialty limitation is restricted, from the procedural point of view, to those processes involving physical, personal enforcement against the subject of extradition—he will not be “summoned” for interrogation, nor judged “in his presence”, nor “detained”; the Extradition Law, however, contains no such restriction, with the exception of detention which, by its very nature, requires physical enforcement.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPLEMENTING SUPREME COURT REGULATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 2 YEAR 2015 ON PROCEDURES SETTLEMENT OF SIMPLE LAWSUIT IN SETTLING THE CIVIL CASES

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Wiryatmo Lukito Totok ◽  
Anik Iftitah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
District Court ◽  
Code System ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Effectiveness Index

President Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 Year 2015 on the National Medium Term Development Plan 2015-2019 mandates to carry out Reformation of the Civil Code system which is easy and fast, in an effort to improve the competitiveness of national economy. Related to this, the Supreme Court answered the vacancy of a simple lawsuit by issuing Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (PERMA) Number 2 Year 2015 on procedures for settlement of simple suit in settling civil cases. The empirical juridical research in the Court of Kediri showed that the implementation of Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 Year 2015 made the lawsuit procedure simpler and very effective and in accordance with the principle of simple, fast and light cost. Effectiveness Index of Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 year 2015 at Kediri District Court Class I B was in the "good" category, influenced by substance rule of the law, legal culture, structure of the law, and community knowledge. Keywords: Effectiveness, Simple Lawsuit Received: 07 January, 2017; Accepter: 15 March, 2017

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI TUGAS HAKIM PENGAWAS DAN PENGAMAT DALAM PENGAWASAN DAN PENGAMATAN TERHADAP NARAPIDANA (Kajian di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Klas II A Purwokerto)

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dessy Perdani Yuris PS
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Internal Resistance ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The implementation of court judgments needs to be observed and perceived, thus the birth of Supervisor and Observer Judge Institution by Law No. 8 of 1981. The position of a Judge is not simply responsible for imposition of punishment, but also have to responsible for completion of punishment term by inmates in Correctional Institute by appropriate pattern and program of counseling. Besides in article 277 KUHAP till article 288 KUHAP it is charged another task as supervisor and observer of the court decision. The research results show that the implementation of the Supervisory Judge task and Observers in the execution of court decisions in Purwokerto Penitentiary is based on the Criminal Procedure Code Article 277 through Article 283 Criminal Procedure Code, the implementing regulations of the Supreme Court Circular No. RI. No. 7 of 1985. Supervisory Judge in the performance of duties and Observers in Purwokerto Penitentiary still met the constraints that are internal or external, internal resistance from law enforcement and the factors of factor means or facilities. Then the external barriers are the ruling factor.Keywords : Supervisor and Observer Judge, Purwokerto Penitentiary and prisoner

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document