Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
2.248
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal USU LAW JOURNAL Arena Hukum Jurnal Hukum Samudra Keadilan JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND SOCIAL RESEARCH Jurist-Diction International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum International Conference on Health Science, Green Economics, Educational Review and Technology (IHERT) International Asia Of Law and Money Laundering (IAML) Jurnal Media Akademik (JMA) Jurnal Intelek Insan Cendikia Indonesian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
Edy Ikhsan
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Arts Humanities Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Health Professions Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Social Sciences Other

Published : 16 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 16 Documents
Search

 1   2 
Prohibition on Social Business Transaction Practices of E-Commerce Tiktok Shop Based on The Minister of Trade Regulation No. 31 of 2023 Ainun Adilla Siregar; Edy Ikhsan; Mahmul Siregar
International Conference on Health Science, Green Economics, Educational Review and Technology Vol. 7 No. 1 (2025): 9th IHERT (2025): IHERT (2025) FIRST ISSUE: International Conference on Health
Publisher : Universitas Efarina

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ihert.v7i1.452

Abstract

The main concept in the development of social commerce based on the Regulation of the Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 2023 concerning Business Licensing, Advertising, Guidance, and Supervision of Business Actors in Trading Through Electronic Systems based on article 21 number 3 is that Electronic Trading Organizers (PPMSE) with a Social Commerce business model are prohibited from Facilitating Payment Transactions on their Electronic Systems. The prohibition on social commerce that carries out online transactions at the same time on one platform in Indonesia is related to efforts to prevent potential monopolies. There should not be two shopping functions on one platform with social media, this must be separated because this is related to licensing and supervision issues. The prohibition on direct transactions on social commerce aims to prevent control of algorithms to protect personal data from business interests. All platforms that provide direct transactions are prohibited because they can create unfair business competition, especially the TikTok Shop platform can use user information to control the algorithm on TikTok Shop, user data without permission is used for marketing and sales purposes, this can lead to market control and result in potential monopolistic practices. The research that has been conducted is a normative legal research that focuses on norms and legal objects as the main data. The results of this study are: (1) the Ministry of Trade issued strict regulations to TikTok in the Regulation of the Ministry of Trade Number 31 of 2023 in Article 21 Paragraph 3 that PPMSE with a social-commerce business model, namely social media organizers, are prohibited from facilitating payment transactions on electronic systems. TikTok only has a license as a social media, not as a market place, so social media and market place must be separated. (2) The prohibition on combining e-commerce with social media in the same application is regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Trade Number 31 of 2023 in Article 21 Paragraph (3) that PPMSE with a social-commerce business model, namely social media organizers, are prohibited from facilitating payment transactions on electronic systems. In this regulation, social commerce must first obtain a permit before being able to operate in Indonesia. This regulation prohibits social media and social commerce from facilitating transactions and payments like e-commerce. Social commerce is only allowed for promotion or advertising without transactions. (3) The results of the analysis with the emergence of legal uncertainty in the Tiktok Shop incident which combines social commerce and e-commerce in one social media platform are, First, the business operations carried out by Tiktokshop are contrary to the Regulation of the Minister of Trade Number 31 of 2023, which prohibits the combination of social commerce with e-commerce. Second,there are no significant changes to the previous TiktokShop with the current Tiktokshop, such as social e-commerce transactions which are still carried out on the Tiktok social media application itself. Third, there are indications of legal uncertainty. The government at one time prohibited the Tiktokshop business practice for various considerations, but in a short time later allowed the business practice again using the same legal regulations as the regulations to prohibit the Tiktokshop business practice.
UNLAWFUL ACT IN TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO INHERITANCE LAND THAT IS DAMAGEOUS TO THE HEIR (STUDY OF SUPREME COURT DECISION NUMBER: 1206 K/PDT/2020 DATED JUNE 3, 2020) Anna Kholilah Daulay; Hasim Purba; Burhan Sidabariba; Edy Ikhsan
International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Vol. 4 No. 5 (2024): September
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ijerlas.v4i5.1999

Abstract

Article 02 of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning the Basic Agrarian Law states that ownership rights can be transferred. In hte process of transferring ownership, legal disputes are often unavoidable. One such legal issue related to the transfer of ownership is highlighted in the Supreme Court Decision No. 1206 K/Pdt/2020, in conjunction with the Makasar High Court Decision No. : 504/PDT/2018/PT MKS, and the Makasar District Court Decision No : 4/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Mks. The decisions indicate that the Defendants committed an unlawful act that harmed the Plaintiff, who was the heir. These rulings show discrepancies and conflicts in the court's verdicts. This thesis aims to explore the following issues: the legality of gifts between spouses under the Indonesian Civil Code and hte Compilation of Islamic Law, hte legal resolution of inheritance land transfers involving unlawful acts, and the judicial considerations in ruling on disputes involving unlawful acts in inheritance land transfers that harm the heirs (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No. : 1206 K/Pdt/2020 dated June 3, 2020). The research method used in this thesis is normative juridical research, which is descriptive-analytic. It employs a normative juridical approach and secondary data sources, including primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data collection techniques include literature review and document analysis. The research uses qualitative analysis to examine the legal materials, followed by deductive reasoning to draw conclusions and provide answers to the research problems. The findings of this study reveal that hte legitimacy of gifting land between spouses during the marriage is prohibited under Article 1678 of the Civil Code, whereas, under Article 78 of the Compilation of Islamic Law, such gifts are not prohibited. Dispute resolution in land ownership transfers involving unlawful acts can be carried out through mediation or legal proceedings in court. The legal basis for the judge's consideration is Article 283 Rbg/163 HIR, where the Plaintiff successfully proved the claims in the lawsuit through a deed of gift and witness testimony. As a result, the court ruled that the disputed land was an inheritance from the Plaintiff's mother, and it was proven that the Defendants had committed unlawful acts. It is recommended that the parties clarify the legal status of the inheritance land by filing a petition with the Religious Court to prevent future inheritance disputes. Additionally, regional officials, such as the sub-district head, village head, and PPAT (land deed officials), should thoroughly investigate hte objects and family history of the gift applicant to ensure legal certainty in future gift transactions.
Legal Protection of Well-Known Marks Against Passing Off: A Comparative Perspective Batubara, Dinda Aprilia; OK. Saidin; Edy Ikhsan
Jurist-Diction Vol. 8 No. 3 (2025): Volume 8 No. 3, September 2025
Publisher : Universitas Airlangga

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20473/jd.v8i3.68772

Abstract

Passing off of well-known marks remains a persistent form of trademark infringement in many jurisdictions, including Indonesia and Singapore. This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the two countries’ trademark regimes, intending to assess and improve Indonesia’s legal protection of well-known marks. The study employs normative legal research combined with comparative qualitative analysis of statutory provisions and judicial practice. The findings reveal that Singapore’s Trade Marks Act provides more comprehensive protection, with a detailed substantive framework addressing passing off, effective sanctions, and a legal culture that promotes compliance. By contrast, Indonesia’s legal framework is less developed, relying on limited statutory guidance and weaker enforcement. This disparity underscores the need for reform in Indonesia to ensure more effective protection of well-known marks. The paper concludes that Indonesia should adopt clearer substantive provisions and foster stronger compliance mechanisms to enhance legal certainty.
Perlindungan Hukum bagi Debitur dalam Kasus Likuidasi Bank: Studi atas Status Sertifikat Hak Milik sebagai Agunan Winda Asry; Mhd. Yamin; Edy Ikhsan; Robert
JOM Vol 5 No 4 (2024): Indonesian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Desember 2024
Publisher : Universitas Islam Tribakti Lirboyo Kediri

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33367/ijhass.v5i4.6547

Abstract

Bank liquidation has significant legal implications, particularly for debtors, such as developers, who use certificates of ownership on land as collateral for loans. Law Number 4 of 2023 on the Development and Strengthening of the Financial Sector regulates bank liquidation through asset liquidation and debt collection processes, which impact the legal standing of debtors, especially concerning the transfer or sale of pledged assets. This study examines the legal status of certificates of ownership used as collateral in banks undergoing liquidation and evaluates the legal protection available to certificate owners. Additionally, it analyzes judicial considerations in protecting developers' rights in cases involving bank liquidation. This research adopts a normative legal approach, utilizing library research techniques for data collection and qualitative descriptive analysis for data interpretation. The findings reveal that developers, as debtors, remain legally obligated to repay debts even if the bank holding the collateral undergoes liquidation. However, legal uncertainties arise regarding the status of certificates of ownership used as collateral, as such assets may be sold through auctions despite the developer's expectation of loan settlement. Consequently, ensuring legal protection for developers is crucial to safeguard their rights, prevent unauthorized transfers or seizures of collateral, and promote transparency in the liquidation process overseen by the Indonesian Deposit Insurance Corporation (LPS). The study highlights the need for clear legal frameworks to balance creditor and debtor rights, ensuring fairness and legal certainty during bank liquidation.
ANALISIS YURIDIS SERTIFIKAT HAK PAKAI PEMERINTAH KOTA BITUNG YANG DIKELUARKAN TANPA IZIN PEMEGANG HAK MILIK ATAS TANAH (Studi Putusan Nomor 272/PDT.G/2019/PN.BIT. juncto Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 1054PK/Pdt/2020) Guslihan Dasa Cipta Matondang; Hasim Purba; Rosnidar Sembiring; Edy Ikhsan
Jurnal Intelek Insan Cendikia Vol. 1 No. 9 (2024): NOVEMBER 2024
Publisher : PT. Intelek Cendikiawan Nusantara

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

Abstract

Permasalahan sengketa tanah yang awalnya terjadi antara CK dan Pemko Bitung di Pengadilan Negeri di menangkan oleh CK, namun setelah putusan berkekuatan hukum tetap, Pemko Bitung mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali dan menarik NR sebagai pihak yang sebelumnya tidak pernah muncul sewaktu pemeriksaan perkara di Pengadilan Negeri, namun sayangnya CK sebagai pembeli yang beritikad baik harus kalah di Peninjauan Kembali dan perkara dimenangkan oleh Pemko Bitung. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu yuridis normatif yang mencakup penelitian terhadap taraf sinkronisasi hukum, yang menjadi objek penelitian adalah sampai sejauh mana hukum positif tertulis yang ada sinkron atau serasi satu sama lainnya. Penelitian hukum juga dilakukan pemeriksaan yang mendalam terhadap fakta-fakta hukum untuk selanjutnya digunakan dalam menjawab permasalahan-permasalahan. Hasil Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Kekuatan pembuktian hak atas tanah tanpa sertifikat sebagai alat bukti di persidangan terhadap gugatan di pengadilan atas objek tanah yang telah diterbitkan sertipikatnya oleh pejabat yang berwenang, Sertifikat Hak Pakai Nomor 2 Tahun 2003 atas nama Pemerintah Kota Bitung diterbitkan di atas tanah milik orang lain karena pihak penjual (MR) melakukan 2 kali jual beli terhadap pembeli yang berbeda (CK dan NR) dengan objek tanah yang sama. Kasus tersebut mempersengketakan hak untuk memastikan pemegang hak milik yang sah sehingga dilakukan melalui proses gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum di Pengadilan Negeri, kemudian pihak yang dinyatakan menang dapat mengajukan pembatalan sertifikat ke BPN atau PTUN. Analisis terhadap pertimbangan Hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 272/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Bit juncto Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 1054PK/Pdt/2020, para penggugat pada pengadilan negeri tingkat I mengalahkan pemko bitung, namun setelah putusan a quo berkekuatan hukum tetap (inkracht van gewijde) tanpa banding dan kasasi, namun Pemko Bitung pasca berkekuatan hukum tetapnya putusan a quo mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali atas dasar adanya novum (bukti baru) berupa Surat Pernyataan Pelepasan Hak Pakai atas Tanah tertanggal 30 Oktober 2002 yang memenangkan Pemko Bitung selaku pemegang hak pakai yang mendapatkan pelepasan hak atas tanah dari NR, sehingga hal ini mencederai aspek keadilan karena belum adanya perlindungan hukum terhadap CK selaku pembeli yang beritikad baik. Diperlukannya perlindungan hukum bagi pembeli yang ber’itikad baik atas objek tanah a quo dimana terdapat pembeli lainnya yaitu NR yang telah melepaskan hak atas tanah kepada Pemko Bitung, maka perlunya ditingkatkan perlindungan hukum bagi pembeli yang beritikad baik seperti kasus yang dialami oleh CK.
PENGGUNAAN KLAUSULA DISCLAIMER PADA AKTA NOTARIS MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 2 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG JABATAN NOTARIS (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia dalam Perkara Nomor 385 K/Pid/2006) Ade Irawan Damanik; Hasim Purba; Tony Tony; Edy Ikhsan
Jurnal Intelek Insan Cendikia Vol. 1 No. 9 (2024): NOVEMBER 2024
Publisher : PT. Intelek Cendikiawan Nusantara

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

Abstract

Dalam praktik ditemukan kenyataan bahwa sering suatu akta sebagai produk notaris dipermasalahkan oleh para pihak penghadap notaris atau pihak ketiga lainnya. Permasalahan yang sering terjadi adalah ketidaksesuaian antara isi akta dan fakta. Hal tersebut dapat pula disebabkan oleh para pihak yang tidak jujur dalam memberikan keterangan atau memberikan keterangan palsu sehingga menimbulkan kerugian kepada salah satu pihak. Bahkan, menimbulkan kerugian tersendiri kepada notaris yang membuat suatu perjanjian. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan hukum normatif dan yuridis sosiologis, sifat penelitian deskriptif analitik. Sumber data penelitian sekunder dan primer. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan cara penelitian kepustakaan dan lapangan. Analisa data menggunakan metode kualitatif. Yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 702 K/Sip/1973 Tanggal 5 September 1973 yang menyatakan “...Notaris fungsinya hanya mencatatkan /menuliskan apa-apa yang dikehendaki dan dikemukakan oleh para pihak yang menghadap Notaris tersebut. Tidak ada kewajiban bagi Notaris untuk menyelidiki secara materiil apa-apa (hal-hal) yang dikemukakan oleh penghadap di hadapan Notaris tersebut”. Yurisprudensi tersebut diatas apabila dikaitkan dengan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 385 K/Pid/2006 terdapat kesesuaian bahwa Notaris tidak berwenang untuk mengkaji sah atau tidaknya Surat Kuasa di bawah tangan. Notaris dalam membuat akta hanya didasarkan kepada bukti formal saja dan tidak ada kewajiban untuk menyelidiki secara materiil alat bukti yang diajukan para penghadap sebagai dasar dibuatnya akta. Klausul Disclaimer dalam akta merupakan suatu klausul yang menyatakan bahwa apabila dikemudian hari terdapat permasalahan atau sengketa yang berkenaan dengan akta yang dibuatnya, maka menjadi tanggung jawab para pihak serta membebaskan Notaris dan para saksi dari segala tuntutan hukum. Pencantuman klausul disclaimer pada bagian isi Akta partij maupun relaas tidak menghapuskan kewajiban Notaris untuk bertanggungjawab apabila Notaris bersalah dalam menjalankan tugas jabatannya. Dengan demikian, Notaris tetap bertanggung jawab atas kelalaiannya dalam pembuatan akta sehingga klausul tersebut tidak mengikat bagi para pihak yang bersangkutan maupun hakim dalam memutus perkara apabila Notaris digugat di Pengadilan.
Co-Authors Ade Irawan Damanik Ainun Adilla Siregar Anna Kholilah Daulay Batubara, Dinda Aprilia Burhan Sidabariba Dewi Yulia Andriany Sitorus Edy Warman Faisal Akbar Nasution Ginting, J. Putra Guslihan Dasa Cipta Matondang Habibie, Maulana Harisoni Hutasoit HASIM PURBA Iwan Wahyu Pujiarto Khairul Anwar Hasibuan M. Ekaputra Madiasa Madiasa Ablisar Mahmul Siregar Maria Kaban Marlina Marlina Marlina Marlina Marlina Maulana Muslim Hrp Mhd. Yamin Muhammad Ekaputra Muhammad Hamdan Muhammad Ricky Rivai Nasution, Mirza Novita Rahmaini Tumanggor OK. Saidin Robert Rosnidar Sembiring Saidin Saidin Sinambela, Maichael Syafruddin Kalo Tony Tony Winda Asry