Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Widya Yuridika

Pendekatan Rule Of Reason Dan Per Se Illegal Dalam Perkara Persaingan Usaha Wihelmus Jemarut
Widya Yuridika Vol 3, No 2 (2020): Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Widya Gama Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31328/wy.v3i2.1688

Abstract

Commission for Business Competition Supervision (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha or KPPU) is an institution established to deal with issues related to business competition and monopoly practices. This article wants to describe the approaches to be taken by KPPU in dealing with the business competition cases. This research employed a normative research method with conceptual and case approaches. The result of research showed that there are two approaches to dealing with business competition case: rule of reason and per sel illegal. These two approaches can be selected alternatively, but they can also be used concomitantly. Rule of reason approach trials the substance of business action and its effect on community economy, while the per se illegal approach uses juridical positivistic approach. Keywords: Business Competition, Per se Illegal,  Rule of Reason
Kajian Yuridis Masyarakat Hukum Adat Wihelmus Jemarut; Solikatun Solikatun; Pahrur Rizal
Widya Yuridika Vol 5, No 1 (2022): Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Widya Gama Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31328/wy.v5i1.2494

Abstract

The Indonesian Parliaments has included a law draft concerning about customary law community in the National Legislation Program Priority of 2020 – 2024, while the provisions on customary law communities have been regulated in several laws.  The questions that is examined in this article are  how are the regulations regarding customary law communities in the laws and regulations and what is the evaluation of these laws and regulations? This study uses a a statutory approach.  The results show that the provisions regarding customary law community are sporadically regulated in Law no. 5 of 1960, Law no. 39 of 1999, Law no. 41 of 1999, Law no. 7 of 2004, Law no. 18 of 2004, Law no. 27 of 2007, and Law no. 2 of 2009. Several evaluation points are (1) the recognition of customary law communities whose conditionality causes the recognition of customary law communities only at the level of discourse; (2) the use of the term is inconsistent; (3) the implementing regulations of Article 18 B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution have not been/not formed; (4) recognition of customary law communities should include recognition of indigenous peoples' original beliefs.