scholarly journals Reminding State Enterprises (BUMN) Management Using the Principle of ’Business Judgment Rule’: A Preliminary Note

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Teuku Syahrul Ansari
Keyword(s):  
Logical Consequence ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Note ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Economic Law ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
Globalization Of Law ◽  
State Enterprises ◽  
Case Number

This paper explains that the development of BUMN (state enterprises) as a corporation that carries out social and business missions is facing constitutional juridical problems and facing the challenges of globalization. Factually, at this time legal development cannot be separated from the influence of globalization. Globalization in the economic field has affected various fields of the business sector in the world.  This globalization is followed by the globalization of law, which causes substantially various laws and agreements to spread across national borders, which causes the merging of legal principles (especially in the economic sector) from one country to another . For Indonesia, the logical consequence of this development is the demand to harmonize the principles of economic law in Indonesia, with the principles of economic law in the international world. Without harmonization, Indonesia can be ostracized in international business activities, because there is no certainty for legal protection for business and investment activities that are commonly carried out globally. The Constitutional Court in case number 48 / PUU-XI / 2013 and case No. 62 / PUU-X1 / 2013 dated May 22, 2013 decided that management  BUMN  must use the principle of Business Jugment Rule. In the ruling, it was also stated that state-owned finances were state finances. As a result, this ruling brings legal certainty about the position of finance of BUMN.

scholarly journals Indonesian State Owned Enterprises (BUMN or SOEs), and the Urgency of Implementation of Principle of ’Business Judgment Rule’

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teuku Syahrul Ansari ◽  
Herdi Sahrasad ◽  
Irfan Iryadi
Keyword(s):  
Social Role ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Business Sector ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
The World ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Case Number

State owned enterprises (SOEs  or BUMN) companies need management which generally emphasizes governance which is more concerned with the principles of efficiency and effectiveness. In reality, it is evident that in Indonesia state-owned companies have an enormous economic and social role, and are an extraordinary force and economic driver. In Singapore and Malaysia, SOEs also contribute greatly to economic activities. In Indonesia, SOEs are included in a number of diverse sectors or fields of business, from banking, energy, food, infrastructure, and transportation, both sea, land and air. A total of 118 SOEs in 2015 with a total assets of Rp5,395 trillion would certainly be able to make a greater contribution to economic growth in 2016 if they were able to synergize in managing the business sector. BUMN assets are also estimated to be greater through the SOE asset revaluation process. The Constitutional Court in case number 48 / PUU-XI / 2013 and case No. 62 / PUU-X1 / 2013 dated May 22, 2013 decided that management BUMN must use the principle of Business Jugment Rule. In the ruling, it was also stated that state owned finances were state finances. As a result, this ruling brings legal certainty about the position of finance of BUMN. This paper explains that the development of BUMN (state owned enterprises-SOEs) as a corporation that carries out social and business missions is facing constitutional juridical problems and facing the challenges of globalization. Factually, at this time legal development cannot be separated from the influence of globalization. Globalization in the economic field has affected various fields of the business sector in the world.

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

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.

scholarly journals A Populist Monster and the future of Constitutional Democracy

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-100
Author(s):  
Andraž Teršek
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The central objective of the post-socialist European countries which are also Member States of the EU and Council of Europe, as proclaimed and enshrined in their constitutions before their official independence, is the establishment of a democracy based on the rule of law and effective legal protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms. In this article the author explains what, in his opinion, is the main problem and why these goals are still not sufficiently achieved: the ruthless simplification of the understanding of the social function and functioning of constitutional courts, which is narrow, rigid and holistically focused primarily or exclusively on the question of whether the judges of these courts are “left or right” in purely daily-political sense, and consequently, whether constitutional court decisions are taken (described, understood) as either “left or right” in purely and shallow daily-party-political sense/manner. With nothing else between and no other foundation. The author describes such rhetoric, this kind of superficial labeling/marking, such an approach towards constitutional law-making as a matter of unbearable and unthinking simplicity, and introduces the term A Populist Monster. The reasons that have led to the problem of this kind of populism and its devastating effects on the quality and development of constitutional democracy and the rule of law are analyzed clearly and critically.

Implication Juridical Decision of The Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 Concerning Wanprestasi In the Fiducia Agreement

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-21
Author(s):  
Soleh Hasan Wahid ◽  
Harum Mudrikah Mahsun
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Security Holder ◽  
Approach Method ◽  
Data Collection Technique ◽  
Research Type

The purpose of this paper is to criticize the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019, which determines that the phrases "executorial power" and "are the same as court decisions having permanent legal force" in Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning The Fiduciary Guarantee contradicts the 1945 Constitution. From the norms contained in this article, there is a power of execution that the fiduciary security holder can carry out (creditors), which then causes many problems, both related to the constitutionality of norms and implementation. Thus, the authors question two things, first how is the juridical analysis of the Constitutional Court decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 regarding breach of contract in the fiduciary agreement? Second, what is the juridical implication of MK Decision No. fiduciary? The writer's research type is library research, a literature study (library research) with a descriptive qualitative research type. The data collection technique used was documentation techniques, and the approach method used in this study was juridical normative. The results of this study conclude that 1) The Constitutional Court's decision has not provided a sense of justice as in Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because in this Constitutional Court decision gives more exclusive rights to the debtor because in this case, the creditor does not get legal protection rights in the event of undesirable things (2) This decision has implications for various parties, namely the Court, which now often receives requests for execution and the process will be lengthy, for notaries must add and clarify default clauses in detail. For business people whose creditors (fiduciary recipients) cannot carry out unilateral execution of the object of fiduciary security but must submit a request for performance to the Court. There is a concern that lousy faith will occur from the community's debtor when the creditor is submitting a request for execution to the Court.

scholarly journals Menakar Independensi Hakim Pengadilan Pajak Pasca Putusan MK Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 879
Author(s):  
Ananthia Ayu Devitasari
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Power ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Deputy Chairman ◽  
Ministry Of Finance ◽  
Tax Court ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Case Number

AbstrakIndependensi peradilan adalah fondasi utama terwujudnya keadilan dan kepastian hukum. Terkait diskursus independensi kekuasaan kehakiman tersebut, Mahkamah Konstitusi memutus Perkara Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020 yang menguji pasal Pasal 5 ayat (2) dan Pasal 8 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak. Para Pemohon menguji kewenangan pembinaan organisasi, administrasi, dan keuangan bagi Pengadilan Pajak dilakukan oleh Departemen Keuangan, kewenangan Menteri Keuangan untuk mengusulkan ketua dan wakil Ketua Pengadilan Pajak, serta ketiadaan batasan periodesasi jabatan ketua dan wakil ketua. Lebih lanjut, Mahkamah dalam amar putusan a quo menyatakan bahwa ““Ketua dan Wakil Ketua diangkat oleh Presiden yang dipilih dari dan oleh para Hakim yang selanjutnya diusulkan melalui Menteri dengan persetujuan Ketua Mahkamah Agung untuk 1 (satu) kali masa jabatan selama 5 (lima) tahun”. Berangkat dari latar belakang tersebut, kajian ini berusaha menganalisa independensi hakim pengadilan pajak pasca Putusan MK Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020 dengan pendekatan teori independensi peradilan. Kajian ini menunjukkan Putusan Mahkamah tidak hanya mendukung independensi hakim badan peradilan pajak tetapi juga menarik garis demarkasi antara kekuasaan kehakiman dengan kekuasaan eksekutif.AbstractJudicial independence is the main foundation for the of justice and legal certainty. Regarding the discourse on the independence of judicial power, the Constitutional Court decided on Case Number 10 / PUU-XVIII / 2020 which examined Article 5 paragraph (2) and Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court. The Petitioners challenged the authority of Ministry of Finance to develop the organization, administration and finance for the Tax Court, the authority of the Minister of Finance to propose the chairperson and deputy chairman of the Tax Court. Furthermore, the Court in its ruling states that "the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are appointed by the President who is elected from and by the Judges who are subsequently proposed through the Minister with the approval of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 1 (one) term of office for 5 (five) years". This study examined the independence of the tax court judges after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 10 / PUU-XVIII / 2020 with independent judicial theory approach. This study showed that the Court's decision not only supports the independence of the tax court judges but also draws a demarcation line between judicial power and executive power. 

scholarly journals The Principles of Law of Negligence as Causes of Compensation in the Sharia Economic Law in Indonesia

Al-Ulum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-78
Author(s):  
Asyari Hasan ◽  
Alimin Alimin ◽  
Rizal Fahlefi ◽  
Desmadi Saharuddin
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Economic Law ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Islamic Financial Institutions ◽  
Islamic Economic

This study discusses what are the concepts of legal principles of negligence as a cause of compensation contained in the positive Indonesian Islamic economic law concerning the implementation of contracts for Islamic financial institutions that are studied in a qualitative-normative exploratory manner. This study indicates that there are six legal principles of negligence as a cause of compensation in the positive law of Indonesian sharia economy, namely: 1) carried out with careful consideration, 2) carried out appropriately, 3) carried out carefully, 4) business activities may not exceed permitted limits, 5) business activities must be in line with the provisions stipulated in the contract (not violating the agreement), and 6) negligence classified as intentional negligence and accidental negligence. While the legal principles of negligence contained in conventional law are currently more complete (11 principles of negligence) than those contained in the positive law of sharia economy (only 6 principles)

scholarly journals The Position of Constitutional Complaint in the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-78
Author(s):  
Agsel Awanisa ◽  
Yusdianto Yusdianto ◽  
Siti Khoiriah
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Case Number

The purpose of this research is to determine the constitutional complaint mechanism based on comparisons in other countries, practices, and adaptation of constitutional complaints under the authority of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Many cases with constitutional complaint substance have been submitted to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia even though they don’t have this authority. This research uses a normative legal research method using a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, a comparative approach, and a case approach. This research indicates that the constitutional complaint mechanism in Germany, South Korea, and South Africa has been well implemented. In practice, cases with constitutional complaint substance are filed to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia by changing the form by using the legal means of a judicial review, such as case number 16/PUU-VI/ 2008, case number 140/PUU-XIII/2015 and case number 102/PUU-VII/2009. Due to the consideration of the structure, substance, and culture of law, adaptation of constitutional complaint within the authority of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia needs to be carried out by amending Law Number 24 of 2003 jo. Law Number 7 of 2020 concerning the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE SEBAGAI PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI DIREKSI PERSEROAN DALAM MELAKUKAN TRANSAKSI BISNIS

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Gary Gagarin Akbar
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Business Decisions ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Definition Of

ABSTRAK Direksi mempunyai peran yang sangat vital bagi perseroan. Direksi ibarat nyawa bagi perseroan, tidak mungkin suatu perseroan tanpa adanya direksi. Direksi bertugas sebagai perwakilan perseroan dalam menjalankan perseroan. Dalam prakteknya, direksi sering kali dirugikan akibat keputusan bisnis yang diambilnya. Hal ini diakibatkan oleh belum adanya harmonisasi undang-undang mengenai definisi keuangan negara sehingga memungkinkan direksi dikenakan tindak pidana korupsi jika direksi dalam mengambil keputusan bisnis menimbulkan kerugian bagi perseroan. Jika direksi dalam mengambil suatu keputusan tidak mendapatkan perlindungan hukum maka direksi menjadi takut untuk mengadakan transaksi bisnis. Karena itu dalam hal ini sangat dibutuhkan doktrin Business Judgement Rule sebagai perlindungan hukum bagi direksi dalam melakukan transaksi bisnis agar mereka bisa menjalankan tugasnya dengan maksimal. Selain itu, jika direksi membuat keputusan bisnis yang menimbulkan kerugian untuk perseroan dikarenakan ultra vires atau melampaui kewenangan yang telah ditentukan dalam anggaran dasar atau peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, maka direksi tersebut tidak bisa dilindungi oleh doktrin Business Judgement Rule. Dalam hal direksi melakukan tindakan ultra vires, maka direksi tersebut dapat dikenakan Pasal 97 ayat (3) UUPT, pasal ini menyatakan bahwa setiap anggota direksi bertanggung jawab penuh sampai pada harta pribadi apabila direksi tersebut melakukan kesalahan atau kelalaian yang mengakibatkan perseroan mengalami kerugian, kemudian direksi BUMN juga dapat dikenakan Pasal 1365 mengenai perbuatan melawan hukum yang mengakibatkan kerugian pada orang lain, maka harus membayar ganti rugi kepada pihak yang dirugikan. Kata Kunci: Direksi, BUMN, Business Judgement Rule ABSTRACT Directors have a very important role for company. Directors like soul of the company, impossible a company without directors. Directors served as representative of the company in running the company. In practice, directors are often adversely affected business decision taken. This is caused by the absence of harmonization of legislation on the definition of state finances so as to enable the directors subject to corruption if the directors in making business decisions result in losses for the company. If the directors in taking a decision not to get legal protection, the directors be afraid to conduct business transactions. Therefore in this case is necessary doctrine of Business Judgment Rule as legal protection for directors in the transaction of business so that they can carry out their duties to the fullest. In addition, if directors make business decisions causing losses to the company due to the ultra vires or beyond the authority specified in the statutes or regulations applicable law, the directors can not be protected by the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule. In the event that the directors act ultra vires, the directors may be subject to Article 97 paragraph (3) of legislation limited liability company, this article states that each member of the board of directors fully responsible to the personal property if the directors of wrongdoing or negligence which resulted in the company at a disadvantage, then the board of directors SOE also be subject to Article 1365 of the unlawful act that caused financial losses to others, it must pay compensation to the injured party. Keywords : Directors, State Owned Enterprises, Business Judgement Rule (BJR)

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 69/PUU/XIII/2015 Tentang Perjanjian Perkawinan Terhadap Tujuan Perkawinan

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Moh. Faizur Rohman
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Married Couples ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Marriage Law ◽  
Marriage Contract ◽  
Property Loss ◽  
Happy Family ◽  
Islamic Marriage

Abstract: this article discusses changes brought by the ruling of Constitutional Court No. 69/PUU/XIII/2015 which reviewed Marriage Law No. 1/1974, article 29 on pre nuptial agreement.  The article previously stated that such an agreement must be done prior or at the eve of marriage contract was signed. The Constitutional Court  decided upon a petition that nuptial agreement may be done prior the marriage or during the marriage. The implication of this reuling by Constitutional Court is the additional legal protection regime that women can have in marriage against misfortunes such as domestic violence and property loss. In doing so, married couples will be focused on the realization of islamic marriage of everlasting, peaceful and happy family.  Abstrak: Salah satu tujuan utama pernikahan adalah terbentuknya keluarga yang bahagia, kekal, penuh kasih sayang di antara suami istri. Namun di luar itu berkemungkinan terjadi permasalahan dalam perkawinan, sehingga butuh diadakan sebuah perjanjian perkawinan. Dalam Undang-Undang Perkawinan Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 pasal 29 ayat (1) disebutkan bahwa perjanjian perkawinan harus diadakan saat atau sebelum perkawinan dilaksanakan. Hal ini dapat mengganggu konsentrasi pasangan terhadap tujuan utama perkawinan. Ditetapkannya putusan MK Nomor 69/PUU/XIII/2015, menjadikan frasa “pada waktu atau sebelum perkawinan dilangsungkan” dalam pasal 29 ayat (1) dimaknai dengan “pada waktu, sebelum dilangsungkan atau selama dalam ikatan perkawinan”. Jadi, perjanjian perkawinan yang semula harus diadakan sebelum atau saat perkawinan dilangsungkan, sekarang boleh diadakan setelah perkawinan dilangsungkan selama dalam ikatan perkawinan. Implikasi dari hal ini adalah adanya perlindungan hukum lebih, terutama bagi perempuan agar tidak menjadi korban kekerasan dalam rumah tangga, menjamin perlindungan terhadap hak milik atau hak guna bangunan suatu harta, pasangan juga lebih fokus terhadap tujuan utama perkawinan yakni membentuk keluarga yang bahagia, kekal, penuh kasih sayang bersama pasangan.

scholarly journals Imunitas Hukum Bagi Notaris Yang Membuka Rahasia Jabatan

Jurnal Akta ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Rita Permanasari ◽  
Akhmad Khisni
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Notary Public ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Law Regulation

ABSTRAKKetentuan Pasal 4 dan Pasal 16 ayat (1) huruf f Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris mewajibkan notaris untuk menjaga kerahasiaan segala sesuatu mengenai akta yang dibuatnya dan segala keterangan yang diperoleh guna pembuatan akta sesuai dengan sumpah janji jabatan kecuali undang-undang menentukan lain. Kemungkinan terhadap pelanggaran kewajiban tersebut berdasarkan Pasal 16 ayat (11) Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris, seorang notaris dapat dikenai sanksi berupa teguran lisan sampai dengan pemberhentian dengan tidak hormat. Terlebih lagi dengan adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia dengan Nomor: 49/PUU–X/2012 memutuskan telah meniadakan atau mengakhiri kewenangan Majelis Pengawas Daerah (MPD) yang tercantum dalam Pasal 66 ayat (1) UUJN membuat notaris seakan-akan tidak ada perlindungan hukum bagi notaris dalam menjalankan tugas jabatannya. Ikatan Notaris Indonesia (INI) harus berusaha menjalankan peranan pembinaan dan perlindungan meningkatkan pengetahuan, kemampuan dan keterampilan para notaris. Demikian juga menjalin hubungan dengan para penegak hukum lainnya, agar penegak hukum lainnya yang ada hubungan dengan notaris dapat memahami kedudukan notaris sesuai UUJN.Berangkat dari pemikiran inilah kewajiban ingkar notaris masih tetap dipertahankan oleh pembuat undang-undang dalam revisi Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris Tahun 2014 yang merupakan konfigurasi kekuatan perlindungan terhadap profesi dan jabatan notaris dari sisi politik.Kata Kunci : Jabatan Notaris, Hak Ingkar, Perlindungan Hukum.ABSTRACTThe provisions of Article 4 and Article 16 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph f of the Notary's Office Law require a notary to maintain the confidentiality of all matters concerning the deeds it has made and all the information obtained for the deed in accordance with the oath of pledge of office except the law otherwise. The possibility of breach of such obligation under Article 16 paragraph (11) of Notary Law Regulation, a notary public may be subject to sanctions in the form of oral reprimands until dismissal with disrespect. Moreover, with the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia with the number : 49 /PUU-X/2012 deciding to have canceled or terminated the authority of the Regional Supervisory Board (MPD) listed in Article 66 paragraph (1) UUJN made a notary as if there was no legal protection for a notary in performing duties. The Indonesian Notary Bond (INI) should endeavor to undertake the role of guidance and protection to increase the knowledge, abilities and skills of the notaries. Likewise establish relationships with other law enforcers, so that other law enforcement who has relationship with the notary can understand the position of notary under the UUJN.Departing from this thought the obligation of notarization is still maintained by the lawmakers in the revision of the Law Regulation of Position Notary on Year 2014 which is the configuration of the strength of the protection of the profession and the notary's position from the political side.Keyword : Position of Notary, Right of Remedy, Legal Protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document