Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Konstitusi Jurnal Konstitusi
Frassminggi Kamasa
Kementerian Luar Negeri RI
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Other

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

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
Kejahatan Kerah Putih, Kontraterorisme dan Perlindungan Hak Konstitusi Warga Negara dalam Bidang Ekonomi Frassminggi Kamasa
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 11, No 4 (2014)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (783.674 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1149

Abstract

This article reviews the relationship between white-collar crimes, terrorism, and Indonesia’s counterterrorism policy. Indonesia’s counterterrorism policy yet include white-collar crimes, especially in economy, monetary, and banking, as a form of terrorism. This is because two things: the ignorance of the law enforcements on the white-collar crimes’ modus operandi and its reality that growing fast due    to the development in science and technology. As a result, although white-collar crimes are so destructive and growing rapidly but Indonesia’s legal instruments to date did not have an integrated codification of law to eradicate it. Furthermore, Indonesia’s counterterrorism policy looks lopsided because it focused on street crimes or blue-collar crimes, the crimes committed by the lower class strata in such vulgar, unsophisticated, and violent natures. That is in contrast with the white- collar crimes which are so corrupt, destructive, and wicked because it conducted in  a sophisticated, fraudulent, and systematic way. Thus, if the definition of terrorism only focuses in the type of street crimes then the corrupt practices, fraud, and deception in the white-collar crimes will be difficult to unfold and it seemed even strengthened, protected, and ultimately have a great potential in undermining the national stability.
Kejahatan Kerah Putih, Kontraterorisme dan Perlindungan Hak Konstitusi Warga Negara dalam Bidang Ekonomi Frassminggi Kamasa
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 11, No 4 (2014)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (783.674 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1149

Abstract

This article reviews the relationship between white-collar crimes, terrorism, and Indonesia’s counterterrorism policy. Indonesia’s counterterrorism policy yet include white-collar crimes, especially in economy, monetary, and banking, as a form of terrorism. This is because two things: the ignorance of the law enforcements on the white-collar crimes’ modus operandi and its reality that growing fast due    to the development in science and technology. As a result, although white-collar crimes are so destructive and growing rapidly but Indonesia’s legal instruments to date did not have an integrated codification of law to eradicate it. Furthermore, Indonesia’s counterterrorism policy looks lopsided because it focused on street crimes or blue-collar crimes, the crimes committed by the lower class strata in such vulgar, unsophisticated, and violent natures. That is in contrast with the white- collar crimes which are so corrupt, destructive, and wicked because it conducted in  a sophisticated, fraudulent, and systematic way. Thus, if the definition of terrorism only focuses in the type of street crimes then the corrupt practices, fraud, and deception in the white-collar crimes will be difficult to unfold and it seemed even strengthened, protected, and ultimately have a great potential in undermining the national stability.
Analisis Kritis terhadap Perjanjian Perkawinan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 69/PUU-XIII/2015 Frassminggi Kamasa
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 14, No 4 (2017)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (382.126 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1445

Abstract

Pengujian terhadap beberapa ketentuan dalam Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1960 tentang Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria dan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan ditujukan untuk memastikan agar warga negara Indonesia yang menikah dengan warga negara asing bisa tetap memiliki hak atas tanah dengan titel Hak Milik maupun Hak Guna Bangunan. Hasil akhirnya, Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, melalui Putusan No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015, menolak sebagian permohonan yang diajukan dan memberikan tafsir sehubungan dengan perjanjian perkawinan, sehingga perjanjian perkawinan juga bisa dibuat selama dalam ikatan perkawinan. Namun demikian, terdapat masalah nyata dalam Pertimbangan Hukum yang disusun, yaitu falasi, kurangnya pertimbangan dan tidak adanya analisis dampak. Di sisi lain, penilaian yang dilakukan secara terpisah oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap objek yang diujikan menyebabkan tidak tampaknya perdebatan komprehensif mengenai isu pokok yang diujikan. Terlepas dari kekurangan tersebut, tak dapat pula disangkal bahwa Putusan No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 memberikan alternatif jalan keluar.Review on some provisions in Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles as well as Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage were submitted in order to ensure that Indonesian citizen who marries foreign citizen could still hold land right with title of the Right of Ownership and the Right of Building. As a result, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, through Decision No. 69/PUUXIII/2015, rejected part of the petition and provided interpretation in relation to marital agreement, so that marital agreement could be drafted during the marriage relation. Nevertheless, there are visible problems in the Legal Consideration, namely fallacy, lack of consideration and no impact analysis. On the other hand, assessment conducted separately by Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia caused the invisibility of comprehensive debate on the main issue that is contested. Apart from the said shortcomings, it is undeniable that Decision No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 provided alternative way out.
Analisis Kritis terhadap Perjanjian Perkawinan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 69/PUU-XIII/2015 Frassminggi Kamasa
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 14, No 4 (2017)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (382.126 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1445

Abstract

Pengujian terhadap beberapa ketentuan dalam Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1960 tentang Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria dan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan ditujukan untuk memastikan agar warga negara Indonesia yang menikah dengan warga negara asing bisa tetap memiliki hak atas tanah dengan titel Hak Milik maupun Hak Guna Bangunan. Hasil akhirnya, Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, melalui Putusan No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015, menolak sebagian permohonan yang diajukan dan memberikan tafsir sehubungan dengan perjanjian perkawinan, sehingga perjanjian perkawinan juga bisa dibuat selama dalam ikatan perkawinan. Namun demikian, terdapat masalah nyata dalam Pertimbangan Hukum yang disusun, yaitu falasi, kurangnya pertimbangan dan tidak adanya analisis dampak. Di sisi lain, penilaian yang dilakukan secara terpisah oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap objek yang diujikan menyebabkan tidak tampaknya perdebatan komprehensif mengenai isu pokok yang diujikan. Terlepas dari kekurangan tersebut, tak dapat pula disangkal bahwa Putusan No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 memberikan alternatif jalan keluar.Review on some provisions in Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles as well as Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage were submitted in order to ensure that Indonesian citizen who marries foreign citizen could still hold land right with title of the Right of Ownership and the Right of Building. As a result, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, through Decision No. 69/PUUXIII/2015, rejected part of the petition and provided interpretation in relation to marital agreement, so that marital agreement could be drafted during the marriage relation. Nevertheless, there are visible problems in the Legal Consideration, namely fallacy, lack of consideration and no impact analysis. On the other hand, assessment conducted separately by Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia caused the invisibility of comprehensive debate on the main issue that is contested. Apart from the said shortcomings, it is undeniable that Decision No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 provided alternative way out.
Co-Authors