Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Arena Hukum AJIE (Asian Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship) PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Jurnal Panorama Hukum Prosiding Seminar Hukum Aktual Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia
Siti Hapsah Isfardiyana
Universitas Islam Indonesia
Economics, Econometrics & Finance Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 16 Documents
Search

 1   2 
Sita Umum Kepailitan Mendahului Sita Pidana dalam Pemberesan Harta Pailit Siti Hapsah Isfardiyana
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 3, No 3 (2016): PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (1862.807 KB)

Abstract

Abstrak Penyitaan dalam perkara pidana bertujuan untuk kepentingan pembuktian terutama ditujukan sebagai barang bukti dalam penyelidikan/penyidikan, pada tingkat penuntutan dan tingkat pemeriksaan di pengadilan. Semua penyitaan yang dilakukan menjadi hapus ketika harta sudah disita umum. Benda yang berada dalam sitaan karena perkara perdata atau karena pailit dapat juga disita untuk kepentingan penyidikan, penuntutan, dan mengadili perkara pidana. Masalah yang dibahas dalam artikel ini adalah manakah yang harus didahulukan apabila debitor sudah diputus pailit oleh hakim, namun ternyata hartanya juga terkait kasus tindak pidana dan dilakukan sita pidana oleh penyidik. Sita umum kepailitan mendahului sita pidana karena kreditor harus segera mendapatkan haknya dan negara tidak perlu khawatir karena kurator dapat menjamin negara ditempatkan sebagai kreditor pemegang hak istimewa untuk selalu didahulukan pemenuhan kewajibannya. General Bankruptcy Confiscation Precede Criminal Confiscation in the Bankruptcy Estate Settlement AbstractConfiscation in a criminal case aims for proving matters, primarily intended as evidence in the inquiry/investigation, prosecution rate, and the level of examination in court. All confiscation conducted in criminal case becomes cleared when the property has been confiscated in the general confiscation. Objects that are confiscated by the civil suit or bankruptcy can also be seized for the purpose of criminal investigation and prosecutions. This article discusses which one that should be taken as precedence if the debtor has been declared backrupt by the judge, while her/his assets is also related to criminal case and has been confiscated by prosecutors. General confiscation precede criminal confiscation, because creditors must soon get their rights and the state, as a matter of criminal investigation, does not need to worry because curator can guarantee the state is placed as the holder of the privilege to always take precedence over the fulfillment of its obligations.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v3n3.a10
TANGGUNG JAWAB ORGAN PERSEROAN TERBATAS DALAM KASUS KEPAILITAN Siti Hapsah Isfardiyana
Arena Hukum Vol. 7 No. 2 (2014)
Publisher : Arena Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (781.8 KB) | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2014.00702.1

Abstract

AbstractThis paper aims to determine the responsibility of the Company's internal organs, namely the shareholders, Directors and Commissioners, if the Company suffered a loss to not be able to pay its debts to creditors and eventually bankrupted due to improper legal organ of the Company while the Company Indonesia adopts a separate entity and limited liability. However, limited liability can be changed to unlimited liability by piercing the corporate viel abusing his authority when organs Company. Authority Board of Directors and Commissioner based the principle of fiduciary duty. In this study the authors will use the method of normative conceptual approach that moved from the separate entity doctrine, limited liability, fiduciary duty, and piercing the corporate viel to look for suitability in laws and crustaceans. Accountability organs according to the Company's separate entity, limited liability, fiduciary duty, and piercing the corporate viel has been set in the laws and regulations. Each organ can be held accountable if found guilty of negligence or willful misconduct that led to the bankruptcy of the Company. Shareholders applied Article 3 paragraph (2) of the PT, the Board of Directors subject to Article 104 paragraph (2) of the PT, the Commissioner subject to Article 115 Paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the PT. Board of Directors and the Commissioner can also be charged with Article 1365 and 1366 of the Civil Code. In addition, the Criminal Code also can ensnare the Board of Directors and Commissioners with Article 398 and 399 of the Criminal Code. Key words: responsibility, organ, bankruptcy  AbstrakTulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui tanggung jawab organ Perseroan yaitu pemegang saham, Direksi dan Komisaris, apabila Perseroan mengalami kerugian hingga tidak bisa membayar utang-utangnya kepada kreditor dan akhirnya dipailitkan akibat kesalahan organ Perseroan sedangkan hukum Perseroan Indonesia menganut sistem separate entity dan limited liability. Namun tanggung jawab terbatas dapat berganti menjadi tanggung jawab tidak terbatas melalui piercing the corporate viel ketika organ Perseroan menyalahgunakan wewenangnya. Wewenang Direksi dan Komisaris didasarkan prinsip fiduciary duty. Dalam penelitian ini penulis akan menggunakan metode normatif dengan pendekatan konseptual yang beranjak dari doktrin separate entity,limited liability , fiduciary duty, dan piercing the corporate viel untuk dicari kesesuiannya dalam peraturan perundang-udangan. Penelitian menunjukan bahwa pertanggungjawaban organ Perseroan menurut separate entity, limited liability, fiduciary duty, dan piercing the corporate viel telah diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undang. Masing-masing organ dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban apabila terbukti melakukan kelalaian atau kesengajaan yang menyebabkan Perseroan pailit.Pemegang saham dapat dkenakan Pasal 3 ayat (2) UU PT, Direksi dikenakan Pasal 104  ayat (2) UU PT, Komisaris dikenakan Pasal 115 Ayat (1) dan Ayat (2)  UU PT . Direksi dan Komisari juga dapat dikenakan dengan Pasal 1365 dan 1366 KUHPerdata. Selain itu, KUHP juga dapat menjerat Direksi dan Komisaris dengan Pasal 398 dan 399 KUHP. Kata kunci:tanggung jawab, organ, kepailitan
KEABSAHAN HAK GADAI TANAH BENGKOK YANG DILAKUKAN OLEH KEPALA DESA Siti Hapsah Isfardiyana
Arena Hukum Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017)
Publisher : Arena Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (353.812 KB) | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2017.01001.5

Abstract

AbstractBengkok is the right of position which is owned by the village chief or village officials to draw on results from land however may not sell or mortgage the land. Bengkok will go back to the village if the relevant term of office runs out and will move on to the next officer. Article 100 paragraph (3) Regulation No. 47 of 2015 governing the management of bengkok land states that it can be used as an additional allowance of village chief and the village in addition to regular income and benefits the head of village. Article 15 paragraph (1) Regulation No. 4 of 2007 states that the village land (bengkok) should not be made a waiver of ownership to another party, except necessary for the public interest. Sell pawn land is land purchase with the provisions of the pawn seller (landowners) with the right to redeem it. Land will not be returned to its owners for unredeemed. However, what if the land is pawn bent under customary law by the village head while still in office. This study aims to determine the validity of the lien sale bengkok land conducted by the head of village using normative method, which uses Regulation No. 4 of 2007, Regulation No. 47 Year 2015 and in particular the Civil Code III book concering the obligation. This study concluded that the lien crooked land undertaken by the village chief is invalid for it violates Article 15 paragraph (1) Goverment Regulation No. 4 of 2007 so, those who act against the law. AbstrakTanah Bengkok merupakan hak keuntungan jabatan yang dimiliki oleh kepala desa atau aparat desa untuk menarik hasil dari tanah namun tidak boleh menjual atau menggadaikan tanah tersebut. Bengkok akan kembali kepada desa jika masa jabatan yang bersangkutan habis dan akan beralih kepada pejabat yang selanjutnya. Pasal 100 ayat (3) PP Nomor 47 Tahun 2015 mengatur mengenai pengelolaan tanah bengkok dapat digunakan sebagai tambahan tunjangan kepala desa dan perangkat desa selain penghasilan tetap dan tunjangan kepala desa. Pasal 15 ayat (1) Permendagri Nomor 4 Tahun 2007 menyatakan bahwa tanah desa (bengkok) tidak boleh dilakukan pelepasan hak kepemilikan kepada pihak lain, kecuali diperlukan untuk kepentingan umum.Hak gadai tanah menurut hukum adat menurut hukum adat merupakan jual beli tanah dengan ketentuan penhak gadai (pemilik tanah) dengan hak menebusnya kembali. Tanah tidak akan kembali kepada pemiliknya selama belum ditebus. Namun, bagaimana apabila tanah bengkok digadaikan menurut hukum adat oleh kepala desa ketika masih menjabat. Penulisan artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui keabsahan hak gadai tanah menurut hukum adat menurut hukum adat bengkok yang dilakukan oleh kepala desa dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, yaitu menggunakan Permendagri Nomor 4 Tahun 2007, PP Nomor 47 Tahun 2015 dan KUHPerdata khususnya buku III mengenai perikatan. Penelitian ini menghasilkan kesimpulan bahwa hak gadai tanah menurut hukum adat menurut hukum adat bengkok yang dilakukan oleh Kepala Desa tidak sah karena melanggar Pasal 15 ayat (1) Permendagri Nomor 4 Tahun 2007 sehingga perbuatan tersebut termasuk sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum.
BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE OLEH DIREKSI PERSEROAN Isfardiyana, Siti Hapsah
Jurnal Panorama Hukum Vol 2 No 1 (2017): Juni
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (452.942 KB) | DOI: 10.21067/jph.v2i1.1752

Abstract

A directors are required to have a standard of integrity and loyalty is high, appearing and acting in the interests of the company's bona fides. However, such losses can not be directly held accountable to the board of directors only for the reason wrong in deciding (mere error of judgment). Directors can be detached from the personal liability of directors if it can prove that the directors have applied the doctrine of the business judgment rule which has been carrying out its duties properly in accordance with the principles of a viable business. Thus, the directors can be detached from accountability for breach of fiduciary duty where the directors can prove negligence or fault that caused the damages is still within certain limits and tindakannnya is not for personal gain.
Pelanggaran Hak Merek Yang Memiliki Persamaan Pada Pokoknya (Studi Kasus Sengketa Merek ‘GOTO’ antara Gojek dan Tokopedia Dengan PT Terbit Financial Technology) Marchelina Ramadhanty Wahyu Utami; Siti Hapsah Isfardiyana
Prosiding Seminar Hukum Aktual Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia Vol. 1 No. 2 JULI 2023
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia

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

Abstract

A brand is a symbol in the form of two dimensions and/or dimensions to differentiate between goods and/or services produced by individuals or legal entities with goods and/or services belonging to three. The purpose of the protection of trademark rights is to provide exclusive rights for the holder so that the mark is not used by other business actors. Mark Rights are regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. Trademark rights are constitutive rights, which means that whoever registers first gets the right. Trademark rights are exclusive rights, so their ownership must be protected. Violation of trademark rights if the mark has similarities in principle with the registered mark. As happened in the case of Gojek and Tokopedia against PT Terbit Financial Technology related to the “GOTO” brand. Article 83 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 stipulates that parties who feel aggrieved because of a mark that makes their mark can file a claim for compensation and/or temporary suspension to prevent greater losses.
Perlindungan Konsumen Terhadap Pemberian Label Informasi Nilai Gizi Yang Tidak Sesuai Adhyasta Dwi Pangestu; Siti Hapsah Isfardiyana
Prosiding Seminar Hukum Aktual Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia Vol. 2 No. 3 MEI 2024
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia

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

Abstract

This thesis aims to determine the form of legal protection for consumers regarding the right to information that should be obtained or obtained by consumers for violations committed by using nutritional value information labels (nutrition facts) that are not in accordance with the quality of food products. This research uses normative research, which focuses on examining the application of positive legal norms. The approaches used in this research are the statutory approach, the conceptual approach, and the case approach. The results of this research show that business actors still do not pay attention and there is a mismatch regarding the right to information and reality. Business actors who do not provide clear and correct information to consumers regarding the content contained in the food they produce cause business actors to violate the provisions in Article 4 of the Consumer Protection Law. Consumers who feel disadvantaged by business actors due to the content on the label not being in accordance with the quality of the product, the business actor can be held responsible based on Article 1365 of the Civil Code, Article 62 of the Consumer Protection Law, Article 97 of Law Number 18 of 2012 concerning food, and Government Regulation Number 69 of 1999 concerning Food Labels and Advertisements. Business actors as stated in Article 19 of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection are responsible for providing compensation for damage, pollution and/or losses to consumers resulting from consuming goods produced or traded in the form of refunds or replacement of goods of the same or equivalent value. In the event that consumers feel disadvantaged, they can take legal action in accordance with dispute resolution through court or outside court.
Co-Authors Adhyasta Dwi Pangestu Marchelina Ramadhanty Wahyu Utami