Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.817
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Unes Law Review JUSTISI Indonesia Private Law Review
Borahima, Anwar
Unknown Affiliation
Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Physics Public Health Social Sciences

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
Akibat Hukum Akta Wasiat Yang Tidak Dilaporkan Kepada Daftar Pusat Wasiat Oleh Notaris Al mulia, Mudzakirah; Borahima, Anwar; Sitorus, Winner
JUSTISI Vol 8, No 1 (2022): Januari 2022
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Sorong

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33506/js.v8i1.1481

Abstract

Abstrak:Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk (1) menganalisis tanggung jawab terhadap akta wasiat yang tidak dilaporkan kepada daftar pusat wasiat oleh notaris dan (2) menganalisis akibat hukum akta wasiat yang tidak dilaporkan kepada daftar pusat wasiat oleh notaris.Penelitian ini menggunakan tipe penelitian normatif. Adapun bahan hukum yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tersier. Teknik Pengumpulan Bahan Hukum yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu Studi Kepustakaan, kemudian dianalisa secara kualitatif.Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa (1) Notaris yang tidak mendaftarkan dan melaporkan akta wasiat yang telah dibuatnya ke Daftar Pusat Wasiat, Notaris mendapat tanggung jawab secara perdata dikenakan sanksi berupa peringatan tertulis, pemberhentian sementara. (2) Akta wasiat yang tidak didaftarkan dan dilaporkan secara online kepada Daftar Pusat Wasiat oleh Notaris adalah tetap sebagai akta otentik dan tidak memiliki akibat hukum yang dapat membatalkan akta tersebut, hanya saja akta tersebut tidak memenuhi asas publitasKeywords: Akta Wasiat, Tanggung Jawab Notaris, Akibat Hukum.
Akibat Hukum Akta Wasiat Yang Tidak Dilaporkan Kepada Daftar Pusat Wasiat Oleh Notaris Al mulia, Mudzakirah; Borahima, Anwar; Sitorus, Winner
JUSTISI Vol. 8 No. 1 (2022): JUSTISI
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Sorong

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33506/js.v8i1.1481

Abstract

Abstrak:Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk (1) menganalisis tanggung jawab terhadap akta wasiat yang tidak dilaporkan kepada daftar pusat wasiat oleh notaris dan (2) menganalisis akibat hukum akta wasiat yang tidak dilaporkan kepada daftar pusat wasiat oleh notaris.Penelitian ini menggunakan tipe penelitian normatif. Adapun bahan hukum yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tersier. Teknik Pengumpulan Bahan Hukum yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu Studi Kepustakaan, kemudian dianalisa secara kualitatif.Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa (1) Notaris yang tidak mendaftarkan dan melaporkan akta wasiat yang telah dibuatnya ke Daftar Pusat Wasiat, Notaris mendapat tanggung jawab secara perdata dikenakan sanksi berupa peringatan tertulis, pemberhentian sementara. (2) Akta wasiat yang tidak didaftarkan dan dilaporkan secara online kepada Daftar Pusat Wasiat oleh Notaris adalah tetap sebagai akta otentik dan tidak memiliki akibat hukum yang dapat membatalkan akta tersebut, hanya saja akta tersebut tidak memenuhi asas publitasKeywords: Akta Wasiat, Tanggung Jawab Notaris, Akibat Hukum.
PERLINDUNGAN KREDITOR ATAS KEWENANGAN MUTLAK OTORITAS JASA KEUANGAN TERHADAP PERMOHONAN PERNYATAAN PAILIT PERUSAHAAN PERBANKAN Khardin, Khardin; Borahima, Anwar; Sitorus, Winner
UNES Law Review Vol. 5 No. 4 (2023)
Publisher : Universitas Ekasakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31933/unesrev.v5i4.760

Abstract

The revocation of a bank's business license by OJK does not eliminate its status as a bank. Therefore, there is no opportunity for Creditors to apply bankruptcy statements for a bank because this authority absolutely rests with the OJK. Legal protection for Creditors can be pursued by the OJK by immediately resolving the bank through bankruptcy proceedings if the liquidation process is problematic, or the liquidation team formed by LPS gives advice to the OJK to make bankruptcy efforts if liquidation process it is found that the amount of debt is higher than the bank's assets, or the Creditor may take other legal remedies by filing a civil lawsuit on the basis of default. This research is a normative legal research. The type of it uses is a statute and conceptual approaches. The types and sources of legal materials used are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials related to the object of research. Literature research used to collect legal materials. This research uses a qualitative analysis which is prescriptive.
ASSESSING THE EVIDENTIARY POWER: NOTARIZED AUTOPSY REPORTS VERSUS VISUM ET REPERTUM Marwah, Marwah; Borahima, Anwar; Yunus, Ahsan; Saphira, Alya; Kouwagam, Santy
Indonesia Private Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/iplr.v6i2.4536

Abstract

In cases of murder or suspicious death, an autopsy reports serve as crucial evidence in criminal adjudication. Based on Indonesian criminal procedural law, a Visum et Repertum issued by an authorized forensic doctor is legally recognized as expert evidence for determining the cause, manner, and circumstances of death. In the case examined, both the Visum et Repertum and the testimony of a general practitioner who observed the autopsy process, subsequently legalized by a notary, were submitted as evidence in criminal proceedings. This study examines the normative ambiguity between criminal procedural law and notarial law, particularly regarding the evidentiary status of a general practitioner’s testimony concerning autopsy observations that is subsequently legalized by a notary. This research uses a normative legal analysis, drawing on statutory and conceptual approaches, to analyze the framework of criminal procedural law, regulations governing medical practice, and the juridical limits of notarial authority. The findings confirm that submitting a general practitioner’s testimony on autopsy observations, even when legalized by a notary, does not create a conflict of norms. Instead, it constitutes a misapplication of evidentiary principles. A Visum et Repertum, prepared by a duly authorized forensic physician, possesses definitive evidentiary authority as it is issued within statutory mandate. By contrast, the testimony of a general practitioner, even if notarized, lacks the legal force to constitute valid evidence, as notaries are not authorized to legitimize forensic medical findings. This article clarifies that notarizing autopsy observations does not create normative conflict, but reflects a misapplication of evidentiary authority in criminal procedure.
Co-Authors Al mulia, Mudzakirah Khardin, Khardin Kouwagam, Santy Marwah Marwah Saphira, Alya Winner Sitorus, Winner Yunus, Ahsan