Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.633
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Dinamika Hukum Jurnal Media Hukum LAW REVIEW Global Legal Review Indonesian Journal of International Law Jurnal Konstitusi COMSERVA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Edunity: Kajian Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan Cerdika: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia
Jamin Ginting
Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan
Humanities Computer Science & IT Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Health Professions Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Public Health Social Sciences

Published : 24 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 11 Documents
Search
Journal : LAW REVIEW

 1   2 
Perlindungan Hukum Pemegang Hak Waralaba di Indonesia Ginting, Jamin; Sari, Vincensia Esti Purnama
LAW REVIEW Vol 5, No 3 (2006)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

Franchise Agreement is regarded as legal guide to certify the rights and obligations of franchisor as well as franchisee. Since the issuance of rights in a franchise is set in a certain agreement/contract, both parties (franchisor & franchisee) demand their rights to be protected by the agreement. The objective of the protection is to secure the risk that might arise if one party breaches the agreement.   The research indicated that some clauses in the Franchisee Agreement are not protecting the franchisors need i.e: a. The clause relating the raw materials should come from the franchisor, b. The law applicable should be the law of the franchisor, c. The franchisor in entitled to all property rights and innovation made by franchisee, and other clauses which effect the franchisee, especially local franchise in Indonesian. Recently the law relating with franchise in Indonesian is only regulated in Government Regulation Number 16 Year J997 concerning franchise, and Minister of Trade and Industry Regulation Number 259/MPP/Kep/7/1997. In this case both regulation are not much of a help in protecting the Franchise Agreement in Indonesia since those regulation are not sufficient in providing direction and guidance to issue the Government Regulation.
Persekongkolan Dalam Tender yang Mengakibatkan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat Ginting, Jamin
LAW REVIEW Vol 2, No 2 (2002)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

Since the Unfair Competition Law No. 5year 1999 enacted on 5 March 1999 and effective in mid-year 2000, many actions have been done as the effect of its implementation. One of its efforts is the existence of Business Competition Supervision Commission (KPPU) whose duty makes a report on unfair practice. PT. Caltex Pacific Indonesia (PT. CPI) has been reported as a company that violates article 22 of Unfair Competition Law. This article elaborates basic norms of Law and considerations from KPPU in determining PT. CPI violating article 22 of Unfair Competition Law and sanctions which should be done (based on the Business Competition Supervision Commission decision No. 01/KPPU - L/2001). 
Kedudukan Pemegang Saham (Investor) Dalam Kepailitan Perusahaan Go Public Ginting, Jamin
LAW REVIEW Vol 4, No 3 (2005)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

Shareholder of company that sells its shares to public and eventually has public shareholders, popularly know as go-public company, are the last to get the benefits if their company is declared insolvent, that is bankrupt. This condition certainly put the said  people in a very weak position, whereas as investors they should enjoy more legal  protection and not the opposite. By law the Governtment Institution for Investment called Bapepam is required to provide a disclosed information regulation for a go public company against which a banckruptcy is filed. This would assist the interested whether or not to join the company. This working paper concerns with the legally weak position of the shareholders. What legal basis are being based on this situation and how far do the laws and regulations give legal guarantee and security to the investors of a go-public company.
Pengertian Utang Sebagai Dasar Permohonan Pailit Dalam Yurisprudensi Ginting, Jamin
LAW REVIEW Vol 2, No 1 (2002)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

The definition of debt is definitely important in avoiding bias interpretation. Without a  debt definition in the Bankruptcy Act No. 4 Year 1998, it has created crosswise-opinions  that cause no assurance of law in the view of creditor, debtor, judge and advocate involved in case of bankruptcy. In some decision of bankruptcy sentenced by Commercial Court and Supreme Court made definition of debt as the simple meaning but the other hand definition of debt as wide meaning. 
Pengertian Merugikan Keuangan Negara Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Ginting, Jamin
LAW REVIEW Vol 6, No 2 (2006)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

One of element to be liable of doing a corruption in UU No. 20 Year 2001 about change for UU No. 31 Year 1999 about Eradication of Doing a Corruption is the existence of states finance loss. Congeniality of states finance in practice doing a corruption of rather than only at state finance directly at state-owned corporation but also to and also finance in the form of share at Body ofBUMN which is ruled by Limited Liability rule. State Loss which must be proved also owns the field and perception which different  each other whether/what verification of doing an injustice of corruption earn with the verification materially or having to in just formal.
Eksistensi Wakil Kelompok Dalam Gugatan Class Action di Indonesia Ginting, Jamin
LAW REVIEW Vol 2, No 3 (2003)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

Supreme Court Regulation (Penna) No. 1 Year 2002 about class action procedure had  settled the mean of representative of class as a legal standing in class action procedure.  Definition of representative of class is one person or more that has or have the same fact, law problem and the same sue with all member of the group. The definition above means that ORNOP/LSM (independent organization non government) can not be a representative of class in the class action sue but have right to sue only by the law. The government as a representative of class action sue just for the public interest, even though the governemt is not a member or part of the group. 
Perlindungan Hak Cipta Program Komputer di Indonesia Ginting, Jamin
LAW REVIEW Vol 4, No 1 (2004)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

The Indonesian government has paid a serious attention to copyright protection especially in computer program. There are five illegal software distributions punished by the court because of copying illegal software. Since July 29, 2003, Copyrights Act No. 19 Year 2002 is effective to protect computer program. There are many sanctions in this regulation to protect computer program in Indonesia like arresting illegal software distributors or users by Police or Official who has been given authority by Law with or  without owners claim report (delik biasa), The commercial court must make a decisiion within 90 days maximum since the filing computer program. Beside all of that strongers, Copyrights Act No. 19 Year 2002 have a hole of law, there is a probability for non profit institution who uses illegal computer program for limited quantity, couldn t be sue as a crimes.
Konsepsi "Limited Guarantee Terhadap Nasabah Bank Dalam Undang-undang No.24 Tahun 2004 Tentang Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan Ginting, Jamin
LAW REVIEW Vol 6, No 1 (2006)
Publisher : Pelita Harapan University

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

Abstract

The condition that unable to pay the fund to the customer at the hank that has a liquidation experience is a bad image for the financial condition in Indonesia, to evade this awful image the government has tried to ensure all customers fund through Keppres No.26 Tahun 1998 Tentang Jaminan Kewajiban Pembayaran Bank Umum that has been renewed by Keputusan Presiden Rl No. 17 Tahun 2004 and Moil between Bank Indonesia and Republic Indonesia Finance Ministry at 8 April 2004, along with KMK No.l89/KMK.06/2004 about the government will ensure all customers fund in bank that will be liquidated, which this condition is known as Blanked Guarantee. Actually this condition is very dangerous to the Indonesian government where government has to ensure all customers fund so through UU No.24 Tahun 2004, been established Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan which limit the guarantee to the customers fund in liquidated bank in certain amount and this is known as Limited Guarantee, the application of the Limited Guarantee is ruled in Undang-Undang No. 24 Tahun 2004 tentang Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan.
IMPLIKASI HUKUM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTIUSI NOMOR 16/PUU-XVIII/2020 TERHADAP NOTARIS SEBAGAI SAKSI DALAM KASUS PIDANA [Implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 16/PUU-XVIII/2020 towards Notaries as Witnesses in Criminal Cases] Jamin Ginting; Helfinsi Raportina
Law Review Volume XXI, No. 2 - November 2021
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Village, Tangerang 15811 - Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i2.4152

Abstract

There have been a few times attempt to cancel article 66 paragraph (1) UUJN 2014 after previously Article 66 paragraph (1) UUJN 2004 was canceled by the Constitutional Court through Decision No. 49/PUU-X/2012. With similar redactional but changing the authority of the MPD to MKN, the petitioner argued that Article 66 paragraph (1) UUJN 2014 also violates Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia where every citizen is equal before the law without exception, this principle is called equality before the law as well as Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which states that “everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee, protection, legal certainty and equal treatment before the law” as has been declared so for Article 66 paragraph (1) UUJN 2014. The existence of authentic deed and the appointment of a notary as a public official is the state’s effort to guarantee the constitutional rights of citizens of legal protection in document in the form of authentic deed. Notary as public officials have oaths and regulation to keep secret as regulated by laws while legal process often require notary as witness. Notaries as public officials are protected and under the care the Notary Honorary Council which established by laws and regulations to ensure that Notaries maintain the secrecy and dignity of their position. Notary shall always be in care and diligence corridor because criminal, civil, ethic sanction but above all, is morale.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: Pasal 66 ayat (1) UUJN 2014 telah diajukan permohonan pembatalan beberapa kali setelah sebelumnya Pasal 66 ayat (1) UUJN 2004 telah dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui Putusan No. 49/PUU-X/2012. Dengan redaksional yang hampir sama, namun mengganti kewenangan MPD menjadi MKN, maka Pemohon berargumen bahwa Pasal 66 ayat (1) UUJN 2014 juga melanggar Pasal 27 ayat (1) UUD 1945, di mana setiap warga negara sama di muka hukum tanpa terkecuali, prinsip ini dinamakan equality before the law dan Pasal 28D ayat (1) UUD 1945, di mana dinyatakan bahwa setiap orang berhak atas pengakuan, jaminan, perlindungan, dan kepastian hukum yang adil, serta perlakuan yang sama di hadapan hukum, sebagaimana telah ditetapkan demikian untuk Pasal 66 ayat (1) UUJN 2004. Adanya akta otentik dan penunjukkan Notaris sebagai pejabat umum untuk hal tersebut merupakan upaya negara dalam menjamin hak konstitusional warga negara untuk memberikan perlindungan hukum atas dokumen berupa akta otentik. Notaris sebagai pejabat publik memiliki sumpah dan aturan untuk menjaga rahasia jabatan sebagaimana diatur oleh peraturan perundang-undangan, sementara proses hukum kerapkali membutuhkan keterangan Notaris sebagai saksi. Notaris sebagai pejabat publik dilindungi dan dibina oleh Majelis Kehormatan Notaris yang dibentuk oleh peraturan perundang-undangan untuk memastikan bahwa Notaris menjaga rahasia dan martabat jabatan. Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya tetap harus dalam koridor kehati-hatian dengan sanksi pidana, perdata, kode etik, dan di atas itu semua adalah moral.
SANKSI KERJA SOSIAL SEBAGAI ALTERNATIF BENTUK PEMIDANAAN DALAM SISTEM HUKUM DI INDONESIA Jamin Ginting
Law Review Volume XIX, No. 3 - March 2020
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v19i3.2098

Abstract

Perubahan zaman yang sangat cepat mengakibatkan adanya perubahan juga pada segi-segi kehidupan manusia dan mengharuskan adanya penyesuaian terkhusus dan termasuk pada bidang hukum pidana yang sudah usang di Indonesia. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan membandingkan pidana kerja sosial di Belanda, Malaysia, Indonesia, Portugal dan kaitannya dengan keadilan restoratif. Metode yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pidana kerja sosial adalah wujud dari keadilan restoratif agar lebih menimbulkan jera kepada pelaku pidana. Di Indonesia, pidana kerja sosial baru sebatas wacana yang dituangkan dalam Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (RUU KUHP), tetapi di Malaysia, Belanda, dan Portugal telah lama menerapkan pidana kerja sosial sebagai alternatif pemidanaan serta dengan perhitungan tertentu.
Co-Authors Chen, Elizabeth Darryl, Erdick Elizabeth Chen Fadjar, Raden Febriarto Helfinsi Raportina Hernico, Brenda Ibrahim, Metty Murni Wati Irawati, Jovita Jur. M. Udin Silalahi Nugroho Adipradana Purba, Nelson Pardamean Rianto Adi, Rianto Rodliyah Sitanggang, Rufina Astuti Sumerah Talbot, Patrick Vincensia Esti Purnama Sari