Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.704
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Masalah-Masalah Hukum Arena Hukum Veritas et Justitia Jurnal Yudisial JURNAL PEMBANGUNAN HUKUM INDONESIA Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia
Efendi, A'an
Unknown Affiliation
Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 15 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 9 Documents
Search
Journal : Veritas et Justitia

 1 
KEKUASAAN MAJELIS PERMUSYAWARATAN RAKYAT: PROBLEMATIK DAN PENATAAN Efendi, A'an
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 9 No. 2 (2023): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v9i2.6763

Abstract

People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is an autonomous institution between the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) but its powers are limited because it is periodic and incidental. Using doctrinal legal research with a statute and comparative approach, this research concludes, first, the problematic power of MPR from its position as an autonomous state institution that is attached to the state secretariat and budget but limited in authority because the exercise of its power is periodic and incidental, such as the power to change the Constitution or other powers which MPR may not implement within five, ten, or fifteen years and beyond during the term of office of MPR members, and secondly, how to restructure the powers of MPR by changing the position of MPR from an autonomous state institution to a joint session of the DPR and DPD by revising Article 2 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which was originally "MPR consists of members of the DPR and members of DPD" to "MPR consists of the the DPR and DPD". It is found that the repositioning of MPR from an autonomous institution to a joint session may serve to balance its periodic and incidental powers.
PROBLEMATIK PENATAAN JENIS DAN HIERARKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN Efendi, A'an
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 5 No. 1 (2019): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v5i1.3172

Abstract

Indonesia over a period of numerous years has had four different regulations with the same intent, i.e. to reorder the hierarchy of the various forms and types of legislative products.  This effort apparently has not yet been a success. In this article, the author shall attempt to identify the core problem hindering the effort at re-ordering and discuss how other countries, notably, Germany, France, and the Netherland tackle the same comparable problem.  The approach used here is doctrinal or dogmatic, and in addition a comparative law method. One important recommendation resulting from this study is that it would be better if the Indonesian legislator re-order the hierarchy of the various forms and types of legislation on the basis of the hierarchal order of the organ issues the legislative product.
PROSPEK PERSEROAN PEMEGANG SAHAM TUNGGAL TANPA PERKECUALIAN UNTUK KEMUDAHAN BISNIS Efendi, A'an
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 6 No. 2 (2020): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v6i2.3694

Abstract

As a general rule, economic enterprises or companies should be established based on the principle of capital association and agreement.  In contrast, Law No. 40 of 2007 re. Limited Liability Companies, provide exemptions to both principles. On the basis of this observation the issue discussed  in this articles are: (1) why is the exemption provided only for certain forms of economic enterprises or companies; (2) is this exemption to the rule justified, perceived from the principle of equality; and (3) what are the justification for allowing the establishment of a limited liability company with a single investor (sole ownership). Using a juridical doctrinal approach the answer to the above questions are: (1) exemption are granted for state owned companies, established and regulated under public law; (2)  the exemption is unjust as it discriminates and allowed for discriminative treatment; and (3) the practice of establishing a limited liability company by a single shareholder is a long standing practice.  
PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN PANGAN REKAYASA GENETIKA: RASIONALITAS DAN PROSPEK Efendi, A'an; Ochtorina Susanti, Dyah; Kumala Sari, Nuzulia
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 8 No. 2 (2022): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v8i2.5401

Abstract

As a general observation we can say that there exists imbalance of power between producers and consumers of genetically engineered food. This paper, using a doctrinal legal approach, examines three issues: 1) the rationality of protecting consumers of genetically engineered food, 2) the rights of consumers of genetically engineered food, and 3) the effectiveness of consumer protection for genetically engineered food.  Arguably, the same situation exists between producers and consumers of genetically engineered food. Disparities and power imbalance relating to knowledge, capital – or simply power – determines the answer to those questions above.
MENGEKSPLORASI DOKTRIN STANDING DI PERADILAN ADMINISTRASI INDONESIA: TAFSIR DAN HASIL Efendi, A'an; Suwardi
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 11 No. 1 (2025): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/hp6dqa52

Abstract

The authority to bring a claim before Indonesia’s administrative courts originates from the phrase “feeling that his interests have been harmed” in Article 53(1) of the State Administrative Court Act. Because this clause is open‑textured, it must be interpreted to define its exact reach. Using doctrinal legal analysis of court rulings and scholarly commentary on standing, this study concludes that two categories of plaintiffs can sue: (1) individuals or private legal entities that suffer direct losses from government acts or decisions, and (2) qualifying organizations. For an individual or private entity to obtain standing, it must demonstrate (i) a recognizable interest, (ii) a legal connection to the disputed act or decision, and (iii) harm to that interest caused by the government’s unlawful conduct. Organizational standing is available to bodies that satisfy statutory requirements to appear in court and that litigate not for their own interests but for the public purpose they were created to serve. Standing may also be granted when the harm is merely potential, allowing the administrative court to act preventively before actual damage occurs.
PROBLEMATIK PENATAAN JENIS DAN HIERARKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN Efendi, A'an
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 5 No. 1 (2019): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v5i1.3172

Abstract

Indonesia over a period of numerous years has had four different regulations with the same intent, i.e. to reorder the hierarchy of the various forms and types of legislative products.  This effort apparently has not yet been a success. In this article, the author shall attempt to identify the core problem hindering the effort at re-ordering and discuss how other countries, notably, Germany, France, and the Netherland tackle the same comparable problem.  The approach used here is doctrinal or dogmatic, and in addition a comparative law method. One important recommendation resulting from this study is that it would be better if the Indonesian legislator re-order the hierarchy of the various forms and types of legislation on the basis of the hierarchal order of the organ issues the legislative product.
PROSPEK PERSEROAN PEMEGANG SAHAM TUNGGAL TANPA PERKECUALIAN UNTUK KEMUDAHAN BISNIS Efendi, A'an
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 6 No. 2 (2020): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v6i2.3694

Abstract

As a general rule, economic enterprises or companies should be established based on the principle of capital association and agreement.  In contrast, Law No. 40 of 2007 re. Limited Liability Companies, provide exemptions to both principles. On the basis of this observation the issue discussed  in this articles are: (1) why is the exemption provided only for certain forms of economic enterprises or companies; (2) is this exemption to the rule justified, perceived from the principle of equality; and (3) what are the justification for allowing the establishment of a limited liability company with a single investor (sole ownership). Using a juridical doctrinal approach the answer to the above questions are: (1) exemption are granted for state owned companies, established and regulated under public law; (2)  the exemption is unjust as it discriminates and allowed for discriminative treatment; and (3) the practice of establishing a limited liability company by a single shareholder is a long standing practice.  
PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN PANGAN REKAYASA GENETIKA: RASIONALITAS DAN PROSPEK Efendi, A'an; Ochtorina Susanti, Dyah; Kumala Sari, Nuzulia
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 8 No. 2 (2022): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v8i2.5401

Abstract

As a general observation we can say that there exists imbalance of power between producers and consumers of genetically engineered food. This paper, using a doctrinal legal approach, examines three issues: 1) the rationality of protecting consumers of genetically engineered food, 2) the rights of consumers of genetically engineered food, and 3) the effectiveness of consumer protection for genetically engineered food.  Arguably, the same situation exists between producers and consumers of genetically engineered food. Disparities and power imbalance relating to knowledge, capital – or simply power – determines the answer to those questions above.
MENGEKSPLORASI DOKTRIN STANDING DI PERADILAN ADMINISTRASI INDONESIA: TAFSIR DAN HASIL Efendi, A'an; Suwardi
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 11 No. 1 (2025): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/hp6dqa52

Abstract

The authority to bring a claim before Indonesia’s administrative courts originates from the phrase “feeling that his interests have been harmed” in Article 53(1) of the State Administrative Court Act. Because this clause is open‑textured, it must be interpreted to define its exact reach. Using doctrinal legal analysis of court rulings and scholarly commentary on standing, this study concludes that two categories of plaintiffs can sue: (1) individuals or private legal entities that suffer direct losses from government acts or decisions, and (2) qualifying organizations. For an individual or private entity to obtain standing, it must demonstrate (i) a recognizable interest, (ii) a legal connection to the disputed act or decision, and (iii) harm to that interest caused by the government’s unlawful conduct. Organizational standing is available to bodies that satisfy statutory requirements to appear in court and that litigate not for their own interests but for the public purpose they were created to serve. Standing may also be granted when the harm is merely potential, allowing the administrative court to act preventively before actual damage occurs.
Co-Authors Dyah Ochtorina Susanti Edwinarta, Caesar Dimas Kumala Sari, Nuzulia Musthafa, Annas Rasid Sudarsono Susanti, Dyah Octorina Suwardi Suwardi Suwardi