Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Novum : Jurnal Hukum indonesian Journal of Administrative Law and Local Government (IJALGOV)
Dita Perwitasari
Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Legal Analysis of Protocol-Holding Notaries Liability for Disputed Notarial Protocols I Gst Ayu Kiara Saraswati Putri Swastika; Dita Perwitasari; Reva Febrizea Marcha
NOVUM : JURNAL HUKUM Vol. 13 No. 1 (2026): Novum: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.2674/novum.v13i1.80912

Abstract

This study examines the boundaries of legal responsibility of a notary who holds another notary's protocol when that protocol becomes the object of a court dispute, an issue not explicitly regulated under Indonesia's Notary Law (UUJN-P). Using normative legal research with a statutory and conceptual approach, this study analyzes Articles 62–65 of UUJN-P through grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation, supported by three court cases in which protocol-holding notaries were joined as co-defendants despite having no role in drafting the disputed deeds. The results show that UUJN-P only regulates the administrative mechanism of protocol transfer and safekeeping, without defining the scope of liability once a stored deed is disputed. Interpretive analysis indicates that the protocol-holding notary's responsibility is limited to administrative-procedural duties safekeeping, maintaining, and issuing copies of deeds while substantive responsibility for the deed's content remains with the notary who originally drafted it. Civil liability may only arise if negligence or unlawful conduct in managing the protocol is proven under Article 1365 of the Civil Code, and administrative sanctions require proven breach of custodial duty under Article 85 UUJN-P. Protocol-holding notaries may pursue preventive measures (formal handover reports) and repressive measures (raising exceptions in court, seeking institutional protection from the Notary Honorary Council and the Indonesian Notary Association). This study recommends that lawmakers amend UUJN-P to explicitly define the limits of a protocol-holding notary's liability.
Analysis Analysis of the KPPU’s Role in Providing Recommendations and Considerations on Government Policy Laily Ika Nuraini; Dita Perwitasari; Syaffiqa Noer Husnina Putrie
Indonesian Journal of Administrative Law and Local Government Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IJALGOV)
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26740/ijalgov.v3i1.55770

Abstract

Government sectoral policies can create barriers to a healthy competitive business environment, particularly when certain businesses are granted preferential treatment. Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition mandates the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) to provide recommendations and considerations regarding government policies that have the potential to cause unfair business competition. However, the law does not provide clarity regarding the legal status of the KPPU’s recommendations, their binding nature, or the legal consequences if such recommendations are not implemented. This study aims to analyze the KPPU’s role in providing recommendations and considerations regarding government policies that have the potential to create an imbalance in business competition, as well as to examine the legal consequences of disregarding such recommendations and considerations. Using a statutory and conceptual approach, this study analyzes Law No. 5 of 1999, KPPU Regulation No. 4 of 2023, and a concrete case involving the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources’ Circular Letter No. T-19/MG.05/WM.M/2025 regarding import restrictions in the downstream oil and gas sector. The research findings indicate that the KPPU functions as an independent institution with the authority to issue advisory and preventive recommendations that lack coercive power. The KPPU’s recommendations and considerations are not legally binding and do not result in direct sanctions if not implemented. However, disregarding the KPPU’s recommendations and considerations has the potential to result in indirect legal consequences, such as a weakening of policy legitimacy, potential violations of the general principles of good governance, and the possibility of administrative lawsuits if the policy is proven to be detrimental to businesses and consumers. Keywords: KPPU, government policy, unfair business competition, recommendations and considerations
Co-Authors I Gst Ayu Kiara Saraswati Putri Swastika Laily Ika Nuraini Reva Febrizea Marcha Syaffiqa Noer Husnina Putrie