Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal JURNAL MAHKAMAH
Uyan Wiryadi
Universitas Krisnadwipayana, Indonesia
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
BPKP's Authority in Supervising the Activities of the State General Treasurer and Its Implications for State Financial Accountability Puspita Dewi Putri; Uyan Wiryadi; Teguh Satya Bhakti
Jurnal Mahkamah : Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Hukum Islam Vol. 11 No. 1 Juni (2026)
Publisher : Institut Agama Islam Ma'arif NU (IAIMNU) Metro Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25217/jm.v11i1.7667

Abstract

This study analyzes the construction of authority in the state financial management and supervision system, focusing on the position of the Minister of Finance as the State General Treasurer (BUN) and the authority of the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) in supervising BUN activities. In the country's financial legal system, the President holds the power to manage state finances, the implementation of which is delegated to the Minister of Finance based on laws and regulations. This position places the Minister of Finance as the holder of the general treasury function who is responsible for the management of the state treasury, the implementation of fiscal functions, as well as the guarantee of administrative order and state financial accountability. Legal problems arise related to the basis and character of BPKP's authority in supervising BUN, especially from the perspective of authority theory. This study uses normative legal research methods with legislative and conceptual approaches to analyze the sources of authority and the implications of legal accountability. The results of the study show that the authority of the Minister of Finance as a BUN has a clear normative basis and is attached to the position, thus bringing the consequences of full administrative accountability. Meanwhile, the authority of the BPKP to supervise BUN activities is more appropriately qualified as a presidential mandate within the framework of the government's internal control system. In the construction of the mandate, there is no transfer of responsibility, so the highest constitutional and political responsibility remains with the President. The clarity of the construction of authority is important to ensure legal certainty, prevent overlapping functions, and strengthen accountability in state financial management. 
The Authority of the Pancasila Ideology Development Agency in Providing Recommendations on Laws and Regulations That Are Contrary to Pancasila Yudha Prasetia Bhakti; Uyan Wiryadi; Teguh Satya Bhakti
Jurnal Mahkamah : Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Hukum Islam Vol. 11 No. 1 Juni (2026)
Publisher : Institut Agama Islam Ma'arif NU (IAIMNU) Metro Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25217/jm.v11i1.7681

Abstract

Although Pancasila is recognized as the staatsfundamentalnorm of Indonesia, the legal system has not yet established an institutional mechanism capable of ensuring that legislation consistently reflects its values. This gap creates inconsistency between the normative supremacy of Pancasila and the limited effectiveness of existing supervisory instruments. This study aims to analyze the constitutional position of the Pancasila Ideology Development Agency (BPIP) within the Indonesian state system and to examine the construction of its authority in issuing recommendations on laws and regulations that contradict Pancasila. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches. State institution theory is applied to examine BPIP’s constitutional status, authority theory to assess the scope and limits of its recommendation power, the hierarchy of legal norms theory to explain the relationship between Pancasila and legislation, and political law theory to evaluate the direction of BPIP’s institutional strengthening. The findings indicate that BPIP functions as an auxiliary state organ under the President whose legal legitimacy remains limited because its existence is based solely on a Presidential Regulation. Furthermore, BPIP’s recommendations are non-binding, resulting in juridical implications through the absence of mandatory compliance by lawmakers, political implications through the potential politicization of recommendations, and social implications through differing interpretations of Pancasila values. This study concludes that, de lege ferenda, BPIP should be strengthened through a dedicated law that clearly regulates its constitutional status, authority, institutional relationships, and mechanisms for implementing its recommendations. Such reform is necessary to reinforce Pancasila as the supreme legal norm and ensure greater coherence between constitutional values and the national legislative system.
The Legal Liability of State-Owned Enterprise Directors for Corporate Losses: Balancing the Business Judgment Rule and Unlawful Acts Samuel Sitompul; Anwar Budiman; Uyan Wiryadi
Jurnal Mahkamah : Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Hukum Islam Vol. 11 No. 1 Juni (2026)
Publisher : Institut Agama Islam Ma'arif NU (IAIMNU) Metro Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25217/jm.v11i1.7769

Abstract

This research is motivated by legal issues in determining the limit of liability of the directors of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) when a business decision causes losses. The main problem lies in the difficulty of distinguishing between reasonable business risks and unlawful acts, as well as the lack of optimal application of the Business Judgment Rule doctrine as legal protection for directors. This complexity is increasing because SOEs have a dual position as business entities as well as separate state wealth managers, so SOEs' losses are often associated as state losses and have the potential to criminalize the business policies of the board of directors. Although previous research has partially examined this issue, there has been no study that systematically integrates the analysis of the legal liability limit with the application of the Business Judgment Rule in the context of the dualism of the public and private legal regime in SOEs. This study uses normative legal methods with legislative, conceptual, and case approaches, as well as primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials that are analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study show that the liability of the board of directors cannot be determined only based on the existence of losses, but must be proven that there are irregularities such as errors, negligence, abuse of authority, conflicts of interest, or bad faith. The Business Judgment Rule can be applied as legal protection as long as the decision is taken in good faith, based on adequate information, without conflict of interest, and in the interests of the company. This study offers an integrative analytical framework that affirms the Business Judgment Rule as a balancing mechanism between the protection of business discretion and legal accountability in the management of SOEs.
Co-Authors Anwar Budiman Puspita Dewi Putri Samuel Sitompul Teguh Satya Bhakti Yudha Prasetia Bhakti