Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.376
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pancasila: Jurnal Keindonesiaan Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Journal of Islamic Law Studies Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan South East Asian Journal of Advanced Law and Governance
Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Humanities Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 9 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 9 Documents
Search

 1 
KEABSAHAN PERKAWINAN BEDA AGAMA DAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI SENGKETANYA DALAM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM ANTAR TATA HUKUM INDONESIA Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Journal of Islamic Law Studies Vol. 4, No. 1
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Perkawinan merupakan suatu hal yang sangat sakral dalam beberapa kebudayaan. Beberapa tahun belakangan isu perkawinan beda agama menjadi isu yang kembali hangat dibicarakan, terutama sejak adanya Permohonan Pengujian Pasal 2 ayat (1) UU Perkawinan No. 1 Tahun 1974 kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan Nomor Perkara 68/PUU-XII/2014 yang mana seolah Pasal 2 ayat (1) ini dianggap melarang perkawinan beda agama di Indonesia. Pertanyaan yang akan timbul terkait hal tersebut adalah apakah benar perkawinan beda agama merupakan hal yang dilarang di Indonesia? Lalu bagaimana dengan legitimasi praktik perkawinan beda agama yang sudah terjadi? Kompetensi Absolut peradilan manakah yang berwenang mengadili terkait sengketa perkawinan beda agama? Tulisan ini mencoba menganalisis dan menjawab pertanyaan- pertanyaan tersebut dalam konteks hukum perkawinan yang berlaku di Indonesia dan praktik peradilan kontemporer di Indonesia.
MENINJAU KEDUDUKAN PELAKU RIDDAH DAN HUKUMAN MATI BAGI PELAKU RIDDAH BERDASARKAN HUKUM ISLAM DAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA DALAM SUDUT PANDANG ISLAM Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna; Raouf, Nadim
Journal of Islamic Law Studies Vol. 4, No. 1
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Riddah is an act of apostasy in Islamic faith. Some texts of the hadits (sayings of The Prophet PBUH) indicate that the apostate shall be punished with death sentence. Beside, the apostate will also lose some of his/her rights according to Islamic Sharia. But there is also a principle of Freedom of Religion in quranic text as we read in Surah Albaqarah (chapter 2) verse 256 which says: “There is no compulsion in religion”. This also indicates that the Freedom of Religion in Islamic perspective is guaranteed, and cannot be taken. Thus this writing tries to elaborate the two which are the Freedom of Religion principle and Capital Punishment / Jarimah for apostasy from the perspective of Human Right especially from the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” which was declared in Cairo, Egypt in 1990.
MEREKONSTRUKSI PARADIGMA GUGATAN CITIZEN LAWSUIT DI INDONESIA SEBAGAI SENGKETA ADMINISTRASI Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Citizen Lawsuit is an alternative law enforcement mechanism for citizens. Every citizen has the same right to file a Citizen Lawsuit in the court. However, the problems are that there is no definite regulation regarding the authority to adjudicate Citizen Lawsuit, and its contact with the “Judicial Review” which is the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court. In addition there are also problems related to discretionary authority where there is a prohibition for judges to judge the good and bad of the government's discretionary actions. This paper tries to answer these problems through normative and theoretical approaches. The contact between Judicial Review and Citizen Lawsuit is that if the object is an existing regulation. Prohibition for judges from assessing the good and bad of the government's discretionary action can be ruled out as long as the assessment is made regarding purposes of discretionary actions ruled under Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration. The character of Citizen Lawsuit is administrative, not civil, so it should be the authority of the State Administrative Court and not the General Court to adjudicate.
Problematik Konstitusionalitas Naturalisasi di Indonesia Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Pancasila: Jurnal Keindonesiaan Vol. 3 No. 1 (2023): VOLUME 3 ISSUE 1, APRIL 2023
Publisher : Badan Pembinaan Ideologi Pancasila

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.52738/pjk.v3i1.149

Abstract

Pewarganegaraan (naturalisasi) adalah proses pemberian kewarganegaraan bagi seorang warga negara asing. Pasal 26 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI Tahun 1945) mengamanatkan bahwa pengesahan kewarganegaraan bagi bangsa asing yang menjadi warga negara Indonesia ditetapkan dengan undang-undang. Sedangkan ketentuan dalam Pasal 13 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2006 Tentang Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia mengatur bahwa pemberian kewarganegaraan atau pewarganegaraan diberikan dengan keputusan presiden. Kedua norma ini tentu bertentangan satu sama lain. Pertanyaannya dalam rumusan masalah yang diangkat dalam tulisan ini adalah bagaimana pengaturan pewarganegaraan menurut Pasal 26 ayat (1) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 dan apakah pengaturan mengenai pemberian pewarganegaraan dengan keputusan presiden dalam Pasal 13 Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2006 Tentang Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia konstitusional atau tidak. Penulisan artikel ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yakni penelitian hukum yang menggunakan bahan hukum primer dan sekunder yang terdiri dari peraturan perundang-undangan seputar topik mengenai pewarganegaraan, dan juga literatur terkait pewarganegaraan baik dari buku, artikel jurnal mau pun tulisan ilmiah lain yang relevan. Tulisan ini menemukan bahwa Pasal 26 ayat (1) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 mengatur pengesahan pewarganegaraan harus ditetapkan dengan undang-undang. Maksudnya bukan berarti pengesahan pewarganegaraan diatur dengan undang-undang tetapi benar-benar harus disahkan dengan suatu undang-undang tentang pengesahan pewarganegaraan dari pemohon pewarganegaraan. Kemudian tulisan ini juga menemukan bahwa pengaturan dalam Pasal 13 ayat (1) UU Kewarganegaraan yang mengatur bahwa pewarganegaraan diberikan dengan keputusan presiden adalah bertentangan dengan Pasal 26 ayat (1) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 atau dengan kata lain inkonstitusional sehingga harus diubah.
Kerangka Hukum Pengakuan Agama dan Kepercayaan dalam Kerangka Kebebasan Beragama di Indonesia Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Pancasila: Jurnal Keindonesiaan Vol. 5 No. 1 (2025): VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1, APRIL 2025
Publisher : Badan Pembinaan Ideologi Pancasila

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.52738/pjk.v5i1.669

Abstract

The right to adhere to a religion or belief is a fundamental human right recognized globally, including in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Freedom of religion or belief in Indonesia is guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically in Articles 28E and 29 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945). As a pluralistic nation rich in spiritual heritage, Indonesia is generally considered to officially recognize only six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. The other religious groups often face legal, social, and administrative challenges, including discrimination and lack of recognition by the state. This study employs a normative juridical approach, using secondary data from legislation and court decisions. The paper aims to examine the constitutional guarantees and practical implementation of religious freedom in Indonesia, the legal and social challenges faced, and the complexities of national policies in relation to Indonesia's commitment to implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The findings show that although the Constitution guarantees religious freedom, its implementation remains discriminatory toward followers of traditional beliefs. Therefore, policy reform and harmonization of national regulations with international human rights principles and Pancasila values are necessary to create inclusive legal protections. By critically examining existing policies in Indonesia and their social contexts, this paper offers recommendations for the development of an ideal policy framework that can protect human rights, particularly regarding religious freedom.
LAWSUIT IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON PERMA NO. 6 OF 2018 Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 8 No 3 (2019)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.8.3.2019.458-480

Abstract

The enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration very much changes the paradigm of the proceedings in the State Administrative Court. One of the fundamental things is about administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. Under Article 75 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, citizens who feel disadvantaged by a Government’s Decision or Action can file an administrative proceedings, and then file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court. Regarding this regulation, two interpretations arise regarding the obligation of administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. One party argues that the administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings must be carried out before filing a lawsuit in the Court, and the other argues this is not mandatory. For a period of four years, the interpretation of the obligation of administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration is floating in the realm of discourse. It was only on December 4th, 2018 that the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 6 of 2018 concerning Guidelines for Resolving Disputes Regarding Government Administration After Administrative Proceedings, finally the Supreme Court dictates that administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings is a must. However, the PERMA does not regulate fundamental things regarding lawsuit after administrative proceedings, namely, who will be seated as the defendant, and what is the object of the lawsuit. In addition, there are also a number of things that needed to be reviewed regarding the arrangements in the PERMA, such as regarding the deadline for a lawsuit in the Court.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE COURT OF LAW REGARDING COMPENSATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 10 No 2 (2021)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.10.2.2021.277-299

Abstract

Public Service is the embodiment of the main tasks of a governance. But in its implementation sometimes it also causes disputes due to losses experienced by community members due to a bad public service. Therefore Law No. 25 of 2009 concerning Public Services regulates dispute resolution in the implementation of public services. At least there are two types of ways to resolve compensation in public service dispute that caused by Tort in the Public Service, namely the Non-Litigation settlement through the Ombudsman, and the Litigation settlement through the Court. However, in further studies it was found that there was an overlap of authority between the Ombudsman and the Court in resolving public service disputes. This paper will try to discuss this in depth in terms of the philosophy of the existence of the Ombudsman, and its implications for its Special Adjudication authority. Aside from that, this paper will also discusses about the procedure of proceedings in the Administrative Court regarding public service disputes.
LEGAL EXPLANATION (RESTATEMENT) OF THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ACCORDING TO LAW NO. 30 OF 2014 CONCERNING GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 11 No 1 (2022)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.11.1.2022.64-92

Abstract

Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (UU AP) stipulates two types of Administrative Actions, namely Government Decrees and Government Administrative Actions. In judicial practice in the administrative courts, the term Government Administrative Action is often interpreted differently from the concept of Real Action. This study aims to determine the concept of Government Administrative Action according to Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration. The writing method used in this research is normative juridical method using statutory approach and conceptual approach. The results of the study show that the concept of "Government Administrative Action" in Article 1 point 8 of the UU AP can be interpreted grammatically, historically and systematically as Real Action as referred to in Article 87 letter a of the UU AP. The jurisdiction for administrative dispute where the objects are “real act” (government administrative action) and “written decision” (government decrees) lays on administrative court, where as for other legal acts which cannot be classified as real act (government administrative action) or written decision (government decrees) lays on the general court as residual jurisdiction (resrechter).
Legal Protection against Legal Uncertainty of Tacit Approval under the Indonesian Job Creation Law Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Southeast Asian Journal of Advanced Law and Governance (SEAJ ALGOV) Vol 1 No 1 (2024): The Dynamics of Law and Governance in Contemporary Situation
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22146/seajalgov.v1i1.9922

Abstract

The concept of tacit approval underscores the idea of considering an application or request as approved even without an explicit formal decision. This approach is taken when the government fails to address or respond to the application within a stipulated timeframe. In such cases, the absence of a response is interpreted as an implied granting of permission or approval. This can be found in article 175 point 7 of the Law No. 6 of 2023 concerning Enactment of Government Regulation in lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 Concerning Job Creation as Law (Job Creation Law). However, this tacit approval must be further regulated through presidential regulation, yet up until this day, it has not been regulated. When the applicant can utilize tacit approval is uncertain, as well as uncertainty regarding legal recourse for the disadvantaged party concerning tacit approval. This research finds that the regulation of tacit approval in presidential regulation should involve acknowledging the tacit approval through registration within the government's information system and issuance of tacit approval certificate, thus ensuring legal certainty for the applicants of decisions. Subsequently, the registered tacit approval certificate can be reviewed through administrative court to establish legal certainty for affected citizen.
Co-Authors Raouf, Nadim