Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.751
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Arena Hukum Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS)
Yuliati Yuliati
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya
Religion Humanities Environmental Science Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Social Sciences Other

Published : 6 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 6 Documents
Search

 1 
Penerаpаn аsаs-аsаs umum pemerintаhаn yаng bаik dаlаm penyelesаiаn sengketа tanah hak milik Dita Ernanda; Istislam Istislam; Yuliati Yuliati
Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum Vol 12, No 1 (2021): April 2021
Publisher : University of Merdeka Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26905/idjch.v12i1.4226

Abstract

This paper aims to understand the General Principles of Good Governance in the principles used as a reference in the use of authority for Government Officials in issuing decisions and / or actions in government administration. The research method is the juridical empirical method because it examines the implementation of AUPB as one of the bases for testing the validity of government actions, namely the settlement of disputes / conflicts over property rights. Based on the results of the discussion, it is found that government officials or government organizations are obliged to apply this to create justice and welfare in society. Of course this should also be implemented in dispute resolution, particularly land dispute resolution. This research focuses on the application of AUPB in the settlement of land disputes at the Malang City Land Office, because there are still many polemics in its resolution. Fаktor law sebаgаi penghаmbаt dаri terms of legal structure аdаlаh terhаdаp object yаng telаh published suаtu hаk аtаs tаnаh dаn the object sedаng menjаdi object perkаrа in pengаdilаn dаn BPN menjаdi pihаk dаlаm perkаrа, terkаit CTF SKP yаng telаh dilаkukаn pengentriаn dаtа mаkа beberаpа pelаyаnаn pendаftаrаn tаnаh аkаn locked / blocked by the system. Non-legal factors as an obstacle to dispute settlement are the parties who are difficult to do to work together in the process of dispute resolution but never lead to zinc resolution.How to cite item: Ernanda, D., Istislam, I., Yuliati, Y. (2021). Penerаpаn аsаs-аsаs umum pemerintаhаn yаng bаik dаlаm penyelesаiаn sengketа tanah hak milik. Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum, 12(1), 32-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.26905/idjch.v12i1.4226
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI PENCIPTA BERKAITAN DENGAN PLAGIARISME KARYA ILMIAH DI INDONESIA Yuliati Yuliati
Arena Hukum Vol. 5 No. 1 (2012)
Publisher : Arena Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (137.33 KB) | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2012.00501.7

Abstract

AbstractHonesty, integraty and originality are the most important aspects should be considered carefully whensomeone creates a work, whereas plagiarsm act occurs when someone fail to provide sufficient source tomention on one’s work. The research shows that either Indonesia Penal Code or Indonesia CopyrightsAct do not provide any definition related to plagiarism, however, Article 13,14,15 Indonesia CopyrightsAct 2002 states clearly exception and limitation in using copyrighted materials on one’s work. Meanwhile,copyrights infringement is categorized as a crime. Indonesia National Education System Actstates the act of plagiarsm without any further explanaition, but article 25 says that the act plagiarismwho done by students, lecturers, or researchers can be use as ground reasoning to higher educationinstitution to withdrawl or revoke someone’s degree. The act of plagiarism, the scope of protection aswell as the administrative sanctions state clearly on Minister of education’s decree.Indonesia CopyrightsAct 2002 has provide sufficient legal protection for creator from plagiarism act, while IndonesiaNational Education System Act and Minister of education’s decree give more specific legal protection tostudent, lecturer, researcher from plagiarism act on educational process at higher education institutions.Key words: plagiarism, copy rights, legal protectionAbstrakKejujuran, integritas dan orisinalitas merupakan unsur utama yang perlu diperhatikan dengan seksamapada saat seseorang menciptakan karya seni,sastra maupun karya ilmiah, ketiga hal tersebut seringkali diabaikan sehingga berakibat terjadinya perbuatan plagiarisme yang dampaknya akan merugikanbagi pencipta, penulis ataupun peneliti. KUHP tidak mengenal istilah plagiarisme sebaliknya UUHCtidak menyebut secara eksplisit akan tetapi plagiarisme tersirat dalam pasal 13,14 dan 15 UUHC yangdisebut dengan pengecualian dan pembatasan hak cipta, sedangkan pelanggaran hak cipta dirumuskantersendiri dalam pasal yang berbeda. UU SISDIKNAS menyebut plagiarisme tanpa ada penjelasan lebihlanjut, akan tetapi menyatakan bahwa tindakan plagiarisme dapat dijadikan dasar untuk mencabut gelarakademik seseorang. Sedangkan, PERMENDIKNAS no. 17 tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan PenanggulanganPlagiat di Perguruan Tinggi telah memberikan kejelasan konsep tindakan plagiarisme besertatindakan yang dilarang. Prinsip perlindungan hukum didasarkan pada 5 parameter yaitu Pengakuanhak bagi pencipta , Penetapan plagiarisme sebagai tindak pidana, Perumusan sanksi pidana, Adanyapidana tambahan, Mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa menunjukkan bahwa UUHC sudah memberikanperlindungan hukum bagi pencipta yang paling memadai. Sedangkan UU SISDIKNAS dan PERMENDIKNASNo. 17 tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan Penanggulangan Plagiat di perguruan Tinggi jugasudah memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi pencipta, penulis dan peneliti di perguruan tinggi terhadaptindakan plagiarisme.Kata kunci : plagiarisme, hak cipta, perlindungan hukum
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KONSUMEN TERKAIT PEREDARAN PANGAN HASIL REKAYASA GENETIKA DI INDONESIA Yuliati Yuliati
Arena Hukum Vol. 11 No. 3 (2018)
Publisher : Arena Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2018.01003.7

Abstract

AbstractThe distribution of food products containing genetic modified organism (GMO) in the market has the potential ito harm the public as consumers, even though consumers have the right to food security and the right to obtain information protected by Act Number 8 year 1999 on Consumer Protection. This article is a legal research that use statutes approach. The result shows that the government of Indonesia has provide adequate legal protection for consumers regarding the distribution of food product containing GMO in the form of the obligation to conduct safety testing of engineering products for business actors as outlined in Government Regulation No.21 Year 2005. Meanwhile, the government has also provided a clear definition of prohibited activities as well as sanction as stated on Consumers Protection Act and Food Act. AbstrakBeredarnya produk pangan hasil rekayasa genetika di pasaran, berpotensi merugikan masyarakat sebagai konsumen produk tersebut, padahal konsumen memiliki hak atas keamanan pangan dan hak untuk mendapat informasi yang dilindungi oleh Undang-Undang Perlindungan Konsumen. Artikel ini adalah hasil penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pemerintah Indonesia telah memberikan perlindungan hukum yang memadai bagi konsumen atas peredaran produk pangan rekayasa genetika baik sebelum peredaran produk dalam bentuk keharusan untuk melakukan uji keamanan produk rekayasa  bagi pelaku usaha yang dituangkan dalam Peraturan Pemerintah No.21 Tahun 2005 tentang keamanan hayati produk rekayasa genetika dan kewajiban bagi pelaku usaha untuk memenuhi kewajiban tentang pelabelan produk pangan yang mengandung rekayasa genetika.
IMPLICATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NUMBER 003/PUU-IV/2006 ON THE APPLICATION OF UNLAWFUL ELEMENTS IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE CORRUPTION ERADICATION LAW Febri Fitra Kusuma; I Nyoman Nurjaya; Yuliati
International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024): January
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ijerlas.v4i1.1388

Abstract

One of the elements found in Article 2 of the Corruption Law is the element of illegality. In the explanation of Article 2, it is stated that "illegality" refers to both material and formal illegality. However, in 2006, the Constitutional Court issued a decision regarding the Formal Review of the phrase "illegality" in Article 2 of the Corruption Law through Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006. In this decision, the judges declared that the explanation in Article 2 of the Corruption Law no longer has legally binding force. This means that the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law can only be interpreted as a formal illegality element. Nevertheless, in practice, there are still court decisions that interpret the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law as a material illegality element. Using the normative juridical research method, this study aims to address the issues related to the implementation of the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law after the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006. This study concludes that judges can still interpret the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law as a material illegality element by considering Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law No. 4 of 2004 concerning the Judicial Authority, which states "Judges are obliged to explore, follow, and understand the legal values and sense of justice prevailing in society."
IMPLICATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NUMBER 003/PUU-IV/2006 ON THE APPLICATION OF UNLAWFUL ELEMENTS IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE CORRUPTION ERADICATION LAW Febri Fitra Kusuma; I Nyoman Nurjaya; Yuliati
International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024): January
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ijerlas.v4i1.1437

Abstract

One of the elements found in Article 2 of the Corruption Law is the element of illegality. In the explanation of Article 2, it is stated that "illegality" refers to both material and formal illegality. However, in 2006, the Constitutional Court issued a decision regarding the Formal Review of the phrase "illegality" in Article 2 of the Corruption Law through Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006. In this decision, the judges declared that the explanation in Article 2 of the Corruption Law no longer has legally binding force. This means that the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law can only be interpreted as a formal illegality element. Nevertheless, in practice, there are still court decisions that interpret the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law as a material illegality element. Using the normative juridical research method, this study aims to address the issues related to the implementation of the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law after the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006. This study concludes that judges can still interpret the element of illegality in Article 2 of the Corruption Law as a material illegality element by considering Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law No. 4 of 2004 concerning the Judicial Authority, which states "Judges are obliged to explore, follow, and understand the legal values and sense of justice prevailing in society."
THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISSYNCHRONIZATION IN THE REGULATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDONESIA FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY Dhia Fadlia; Prija Djatmika; Yuliati
International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Vol. 4 No. 6 (2024): November
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ijerlas.v4i6.2132

Abstract

The regulation of restorative justice within the criminal justice system in Indonesia is currently governed by the respective law enforcement agencies, but it has not been codified in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which can lead to legal uncertainty. Consequently, there are legal implications arising from the lack of synchronization in the regulation of restorative justice within Indonesia’s criminal justice system, particularly from the perspective of legal certainty. Therefore, this study aims to reconstruct the regulation of restorative justice to ensure legal certainty in the future. This research is a normative-juridical study utilizing both statutory and synchronic approaches. There are fundamental differences concerning the conditions and limitations of criminal acts as regulated by Police Regulation No. 8 of 2021, Prosecutor's Regulation No. 15 of 2020, and Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2024. The existing partial guidelines on restorative justice, particularly regarding the conditions set forth, are inconsistent and cause legal uncertainty in determining which cases may be eligible for restorative justice, especially those under the Police institution, where the criteria are considered overly broad. Thus, the differences in restorative justice regulations among the respective agencies lead to inconsistencies in the conditions and limitations of criminal acts, as well as confusion in the restorative justice process during the investigation and inquiry stages within the Police. There is a need for specific regulation on restorative justice to be incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to avoid inconsistencies and legal uncertainty.
Co-Authors Dhia Fadlia Dita Ernanda Febri Fitra Kusuma I Nyoman Nurjaya Istislam, - Prija Djatmika