Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal IUS (Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan) International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS)
Abdul Majid
Universitas Brawijaya
Religion Humanities Environmental Science Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Social Sciences Other

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Penerapan Honorarium PPAT Sebagai Upaya Untuk Penyetaraan Pelayanan (Studi Kasus Di Kota Malang) Purwaning Rahayu Sisworini; Abdul Majid; Herman Suryokumoro
Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan Vol 8, No 3: December 2020 : Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29303/ius.v8i3.769

Abstract

PPAT adalahipejabat umum yangidiberi kewenanganiuntuk membuatiakta-akta otentik mengenaiiperbuatan hukumitertentu mengenai hak atas tanahiatau hak milikiatas satuan rumahisusun. Pada saat menjalankan jabatannya PPAT diperbolehkan menarik honorarium maksimal 1%i(satu persen)idari hargaitransaksi. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pelaksanaan Pasal 32 ayat (1) Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 tahun 2016 Tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 37 Tahun 1998 Tentang Peraturan Jabatan Pembuat Akta Tanah  terkait honorarium PPAT sebagai upaya untuk penyetaraan pelayanan dan faktor yang mempengaruhi pelaksanaan honorarium PPAT sebagai upaya untuk penyetaraan pelayanan. Artikel ini termasuk dalam jenis penelitian yuridis sosiologis/empiris/atau non doktrinal dengan pendekatan kualitatif dan lokus penelitian Kota Malang, teknik pengumpulan data yang dilakukan melalui penelitian lapangan dan penelitian kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa tingkat pelaksanaan Hukum terkait larangan penarikan uangijasa (honorarium) PPATatermasuk uang jasaa(honorarium) saksi tidak bolehimelebihi 1% (satu persen)idari harga transaksiisangat rendah. Adapun faktor yang mempengaruhi yaitu pengetahuan, pemahamaan, penaatan hukum, pengharapan hukum, budaya hukum dan peningkatan kesadaran hukum.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF PRETRIAL DECISIONS OUTSIDE THE OBJECT OF PRETRIAL CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF SUPREME COURT REGULATION NUMBER 4 OF 2016 CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION OF REVIEW OF PRETRIAL DECISIONS Rahmat Hidayat; Yuliati; Abdul Majid
International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Vol. 5 No. 6 (2025)
Publisher : CV. RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ijerlas.v5i6.4346

Abstract

Pretrial decisions have an important role in ensuring the protection of human rights and controlling coercive actions by law enforcement officers in the Indonesian criminal justice system. However, in judicial practice, dynamics have developed where pretrial judges decide cases outside the object of pretrial as limited by Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such as examining the validity of the determination of suspects, preliminary evidence, and even the main points of the case. This development has given rise to legal issues, especially after the issuance of Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) Number 4 of 2016 which expressly prohibits the legal remedy of Judicial Review (PK) against pretrial decisions. This study aims to analyze: (1) the legal basis for the birth of pretrial decisions that exceed the limits of the object of authority; (2) the legal implications of these decisions on the principles of legal certainty, justice, and due process of law; and (3) the relevance of Perma No. 4 of 2016 in providing solutions to the lack of legal remedies for controversial pretrial decisions. This study uses a normative legal method with a statutory, case, and conceptual approach. The data were analyzed qualitatively through systematic and comparative legal interpretation of pretrial practices following Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 and other progressive pretrial decisions. The research results show that the expansion of pretrial objects is a consequence of the constitutional interpretation of the protection of the suspect's rights, but at the same time creates legal uncertainty and disharmony between the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code and judicial practice. The prohibition of judicial review in Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2016 limits access to justice by closing the room for correction of ultra vires pretrial decisions. Therefore, it is necessary to reconstruct the pretrial regulations in the future Criminal Procedure Code and open up space for limited legal remedies to prevent abuse of pretrial judges' authority.
Co-Authors Fachrizal Afandi Herman Suryokumoro Michael Yudhistira Lumban Gaol Purwaning Rahayu Sisworini Rahmat Hidayat Yuliati Yuliati