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 15 Documents
Search

 1   2 
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.
PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI MELEBIHI KEWENANGAN Efendi, A'an
Jurnal Yudisial Vol. 17 No. 1 (2024): ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v17i1.627

Abstract

Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 pada amar pokok permohonan pada diktum ketiga, keempat, dan kelima melampaui kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memutus perkara pengujian formil undang-undang, sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 51A ayat (4) jo. Pasal 57 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Penelitian ini untuk menjustifikasi bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi dilarang melakukan tindakan ultra vires atau melampaui kewenangannya ketika memutus perkara pengujian undang-undang. Berdasarkan latar belakang tersebut, penelitian ini untuk menjawab dua permasalahan, yaitu: (1) apakah Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 melebihi batas kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi?; (2) apa implikasi hukum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang melebihi batas kewenangan berdasarkan undang-undang? Penelitian ini menggunakan tipe penelitian hukum doktrinal dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Penelitian menghasilkan dua simpulan. Pertama, Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 adalah putusan ultra vires karena wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan Pasal 51A ayat (4) jo. Pasal 57 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi telah jelas dan tidak ambigu, hanya untuk menyatakan pembentukan undang-undang tidak memenuhi ketentuan pembentukan undangundang berdasarkan UUD NRI 1945 dan undang-undang dimaksud tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat. Kedua, implikasi hukum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang melampaui wewenang merupakan putusan yang sah dan bukan batal demi hukum, karena tidak akan ada putusan pengadilan yang dapat menyatakan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi batal demi hukum.
Co-Authors Dyah Ochtorina Susanti Edwinarta, Caesar Dimas Kumala Sari, Nuzulia Musthafa, Annas Rasid Sudarsono Susanti, Dyah Octorina Suwardi Suwardi Suwardi