Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

REVIEW OF DECISIONS IN DEFAULT CASES COMPANIES AGAINST WORKERS IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE DISTRICT COURTS AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DISPUTES Hani Usmandani; Nurjannah Septyanun; Yulias Erwin
Jurnal Ilmiah Advokasi Vol 12, No 2 (2024): Jurnal Ilmiah Advokasi
Publisher : Universitas Labuhanbatu

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36987/jiad.v12i2.5300

Abstract

The subject matter of this study is related to the legal relationship between the Company and workers in the decision of the Company's default case against workers and the application of the authority to adjudicate in the decision of a quo case. This research is qualitative research with normative (doctrinal) research type. Using the Legislation approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. Data collection techniques through literature studies, as well as analytical descriptive analysis and deductive methods. The results of the research on the legal relationship between the Company and Workers are based on the Collective Labor Agreement stipulated in Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower Jo. Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation into Law and the authority to adjudicate cases of default of the Company against Workers is the authority of the Industrial Relations Court. The District Court does not accept a quo lawsuit because a default dispute is a dispute of rights as referred to in Article 1 point 2 of Law Number 2 of 2004 concerning the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes.    Keywords: Authority; Judge; Worker; Dispute; default
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST DESTRUCTIVE FISHING IN INDONESIA: JUDICIAL REASONING AND ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE IN JUDGMENT No. 152/Pid.Sus-LH/2025/PN.Pya Dedi Afrizal Hidayat; Rina Rohayu Harun; Yulias Erwin; Nurjannah Septyanun
Jurnal Ilmiah Advokasi Vol 14, No 2 (2026): Jurnal Ilmiah Advokasi
Publisher : Universitas Labuhanbatu

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36987/jiad.v14i2.8593

Abstract

Destructive fishing continues to pose a serious threat to Indonesia's marine ecosystems, yet judicial responses remain predominantly oriented toward criminal punishment rather than ecological restoration. This article examines how destructive fishing regulations are implemented through judicial reasoning and whether court decisions incorporate ecological justice as part of environmental law enforcement. This study employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches to analyze Judgment No. 152/Pid.Sus-LH/2025/PN.Pya together with relevant fisheries and environmental legislation. The findings demonstrate that the judgment primarily reflects a conventional retributive model of criminal law enforcement by emphasizing imprisonment, fines, and the confiscation or destruction of evidence, while restorative obligations such as ecosystem rehabilitation, environmental recovery, and compensation for ecological damage are absent from the judicial order. These findings indicate that the implementation of destructive fishing regulations in judicial practice remains focused on formal legal compliance and deterrence rather than substantive ecological justice. This study contributes by proposing a responsive ecological law enforcement model that integrates criminal sanctions with ecosystem restoration, thereby encouraging courts to institutionalize environmental recovery as an essential component of judicial outcomes in destructive fishing cases.Keywords: destructive fishing; ecological justice; environmental restoration; law enforcement; responsive law.