Konsekuensi Yuridis Berlakunya Perjanjian Perkawinan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 69/PUU-XIII/2015

Philosophically PMK (Constitutional Court Decision) Nr. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 based on way of life, awareness, and legal ideals such as the mystical atmosphere and Indonesian Nation according Pancasila and The Constitutional of The Republic of Indonesia Article 28E Paragraph (2). Sociologically, based on legal needs society regarding the leniency when the marriage agreement was made that is the phenomenon of a husband and wife for some reason feels they needed to make a marriage agreement after the wedding day was held. Juridically, the issuance of PMK Nr. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 is not solely on the basis of unconstitutionality, but also on a conflict of norms between Article 29 Paragraph (1) of Act Nr. Year 1974 with general provisions of the ageement in Book III Code of Civil Law. Referring to PMK No.69/PUU-XIII/2015 which was strengthened by Act Nr. 2 Year 2014, Notary has the right to ratified the marriage agreement into an authentic deed so that there is no justifiable reason for the Department of Population and Civil Registration and Office of Religious Affairs rejects the authentic nature of the deed which is validated bay notary.

Controversial Issues of Abortion License According to Religious and Jurisprudential Laws in Iran: A Systematic Review

Background : Increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies has been considered to be among the health indices of the society. A large number of children, illegitimate children, and undesirable fetal gender might increase the prevalence of illegal abortions. Objective: The present study aimed to investigate the abortion license according to religious and jurisprudential laws in Iran. Methods: In this review, the related articles were found through searching of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, SID, and Magiran databases as well as Muslim authorities’ sites using the following keywords: ethics, religious, abortion, and Islamic jurists’ fatwas, without any time limitations. Results: The majority of Islamic jurisprudents have considered abortion to be forbidden and nonreligious at any stage of development in case there is no justifiable reason. In case of fetal anomalies or threats to the mother’s life, abortion is allowed, based on the jurisprudential law (al-'usr wa el-haraj) and written permission by the department of forensic medicine. However, abortion is not permitted after ensoulment to the fetus, according to all scholars, with the exception of a few jurisprudents. Conclusion: The prohibition of abortion, in the view of most jurists, is not an absolute issue and might include exceptions. According to jurisprudential laws (al-'usr wa el-haraj), the prohibition of abortion has been abolished. Harassment and conflict in maternal-fetal life can also provide a license for abortion.

On the front line?

Is there room for war metaphor in academic libraries? Is there a good, or justifiable, reason for its use? In this paper, we argue the answer to these questions is no. The paper will discuss the nature of metaphor in general, the effects of its use, and why those effects matter. Grounded in this discussion, it will consider and analyze the use of war metaphor, specifically in the academic library world. Finally, it will offer suggestions for how, through individual and collective effort, the metaphor of war might be purged from the academic library lexicon.

Rule 61: Declaration of non-infringement

A possible defendant can defend himself before a claimant has commenced an infringement action by an action for a declaration of non-infringement. With that action, the claimant in the action for a declaration of non-infringement is denying the existence of a claim against him based on an infringement of the patent. Where he has a justifiable reason for doing so, he may also request a declaration that the patent proprietor or a licensee cannot raise an infringement claim against another person (ie against customers). In order to include this variant, para 1 has to be applied extensively.

Analisis Yuridis Kewenangan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) sebagai Penuntut Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi

Abstrak : Meningkatnya tindak pidana korupsi yang tidak terkendali akan membawa bencana tidak saja terhadap kehidupan perekonomian nasional tetapi juga terhadap kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara pada umumnya. Pengambilalihan penyidikan dan penuntutan sebagaimana dimaksud dilakukan oleh Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dengan alasan laporan masyarakat mengenai tindak pidana korupsi tidak ditindaklanjuti, proses penanganan tindak pidana korupsi secara berlarut-larut atau tertunda-tunda tanpa alasan yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis apa yang menjadi dasar hukum bagi kewenangan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi untuk melakukan penyidikan dan penuntutan? Apa kendala-kendala yang dihadapi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi untuk melakukan penyidikan dan penuntutan dalam tindak pidana Korupsi?. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normative. Jenis data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder. Hasil penelitan yaitu Kewenangan KPK untuk menangani kasus korupsi diatur dalam Pasal 6 huruf c UU KPK bahwa KPK mempunyai tugas melakukan penyelidikan, penyidikan, dan penuntutan terhadap tindak pidana korupsi. Namun, KPK memiliki kewenangan tambahan yaitu dapat mengambil alih perkara korupsi walaupun sedang ditangani oleh Kepolisian atau Kejaksaan (Pasal 8 ayat (2) UU KPK). Akan tetapi, pengambil alihan perkara korupsi tersebut harus dengan alasan yang diatur dalam Pasal 9 UU KPK. Selain kewenangan untuk mengambil alih perkara korupsi, ada hal lain yang menjadi kewenangan KPK yaitu sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 11 UU KPK dan Pasal 50 UU KPK. Kesimpulan diperlukan pengaturan yang disepakati bersama untuk menghilangkan anggapan adanya tumpang tindih kewenangan dalam hal siapa yang berwenang untuk melakukan penuntutan terhadap tindak pidana korupsi muncul setelah dikeluarkannya UndangKata Kunci : Penuntut, Tindak Pidana Korupsi.�THE ANALYSIS JURIDIS FOR AUTHORITY� THE CORRUPTION ERADICATION COMMISSION AS PROSECUTOR TOWARD THE� ACTORS OF CORRUPTION �Abstract : The increasing uncontrolled corruption in general will bring disaster to the life of national economy and nation and state. The existence of a public report on corruption is not followed up, and all the consequences of the process of handling corruption in a protracted manner without a justifiable reason then the corruption eradication commission takes over the aforementioned and the demands.� The purpose of this study is to know and analyze what is the� basis law� for the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission to conduct investigations and prosecutions,�� and� what are the constraints faced by the Corruption Eradication Commission to conduct investigations and prosecutions in Corruption.� The research method used is juridical normative, the type of data used is secondary data. The result of research is KPK's authority to handle corruption cases regulated in Article 6 letter C of KPK Constitution,� that KPK has duty to conduct investigation, investigation and prosecution of corruption crime. However, the KPK has the additional authority of being able to take over the corruption case even though it is being handled by the Police or Prosecutor's Office (Article 8 paragraph (2) of the KPK Constitution). However, the acquisition of such corruption cases must be for reasons set out in Article 9 of the KPK Constitution. In addition to that authority, there is another matter which becomes the authority of KPK that is as regulated in Article 11 and Article 50 of KPK Constitution. The conclusion is that there is a mutually agreed arrangement to dispel the assumption of overlapping authority in terms of who is authorized to prosecute corrupt acts, arising after the issuance of Constitution.Keywords: Prosecutor, Corruption.

Legislative Prohibitions on wearing a Headscarf: Are they justified?

A headscarf, a simple piece of cloth that covers the head, is a controversial garment that carries various connotations and meanings. While it may be accepted as just another item of clothing when worn by non-Muslim women, it is often the subject of much controversy when worn by Muslim women. In recent years the headscarf has been described as a symbol of Islam's oppression of women and simultaneously of terrorism. As the debate regarding the acceptability of the headscarf in the modern world continues, an increasing number of states have legislated to ban the wearing of the headscarf. This article critically examines the reasons underlying these bans and argues that these prohibitions are not justified. It does this by first analysing the place of the headscarf in Islam, its religious basis and its significance to Muslim women. It argues that the headscarf is more than just a mere religious symbol and that Muslim women wear the headscarf as a matter of religious obligation. The headscarf is considered to be an important religious practice protected by the right to freedom of religion. Thereafter the article examines legislative bans on the headscarf in France, Turkey and Switzerland in order to identify the most popular justifications advanced by states and courts for banning the headscarf. It critically evaluates the justifications for protecting secularism, preventing coercion, promoting equality and curbing religious extremism, and disputes that the reasons put forward by states and accepted by courts justify banning the headscarf. It thereafter explores how South African courts would respond to a headscarf ban and argues that schools and employers should accommodate the headscarf. While Muslim women may not have an absolute right to wear the headscarf, there has thus far been no justifiable reason for banning the headscarf.