Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

LEGAL RECONSTRUCTION OF COPYRIGHT AS MARITAL PROPERTY IN INDONESIAN LAW Piput Milandsari Milandsari; Yenny Eta Widyanti; Yuliati
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.v5i6.4248

This study examines the reconstruction of copyright law as marital property within the Indonesian legal framework, focusing on the economic rights of works created during marriage. The research background stems from the complexity of the relationship between intellectual property rights and family law, where copyright often becomes a source of conflict in asset division during divorce. Employing a normative method with legislative, comparative, and conceptual approaches, this study compares regulations in Indonesia and the People's Republic of China. The findings indicate that Indonesia lacks specific rules on the division of economic copyright rights as marital property, whereas China has explicitly integrated them into the Civil Code. Reconstruction is proposed through harmonization of the Copyright Law and Marriage Law, differentiation between moral and economic rights, and the establishment of technical regulations to ensure legal certainty, justice, and protection of creators' rights. These findings contribute to the development of a more responsive national law towards intangible assets in family contexts.

PREVENTING MONEY LAUNDERING THROUGH ILLICIT ENRICHMENT POLICY REGULATORY: AN INDONESIA-MALAYSIA COMPARISON Arum Roselinda; Yuliati; I Nyoman Nurjaya
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.v5i6.4274

This research explores the urgency of regulating illicit enrichment within Indonesia’s Money Laundering Law and identifies the ideal evidentiary mechanism to support its enforcement through a comparative analysis with Malaysia. Despite Indonesia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the absence of explicit provisions on illicit enrichment weakens the country’s capacity to address disproportionate wealth among public officials. Law enforcement remains dependent on proving predicate offenses, which limits asset recovery and the deterrent effect of anti-money laundering efforts. Conversely, Malaysia, through the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act (MACC Act) 2009, has adopted a more progressive framework that integrates asset declaration, verification of wealth sources, and investigative authority, even without directly criminalizing illicit enrichment. Using a normative juridical approach combined with comparative and case analysis, this research finds that Indonesia requires a hybrid evidentiary model integrating the principles of legal certainty and responsive law. Such a system would establish clear statutory standards, an asset forfeiture framework, and adaptive mechanisms that enhance transparency, public participation, and accountability. Strengthening Indonesia’s anti-money laundering regime through the integration of illicit enrichment provisions would not only ensure early detection of unexplained wealth but also advance asset recovery and institutional integrity.

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

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.

LEGISLATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF ARTICLE 54 PARAGRAPH (2) OF THE KUHP CONCERNING THE LAW OF PARDON IN CRIMINAL PROVISION IN INDONESIA Debora Oktarina Sihombing; Yuliati; Bambang Sugiri
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.v5i6.4755

Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) introduces the concept of rechterlijk pardon or judicial forgiveness in Article 54 paragraph (2). This provision grants judges discretionary authority to release perpetrators from criminal penalties by considering the severity of the act, the perpetrator's personal circumstances, or the circumstances after the crime, as long as they take into account a sense of justice and humanity. This article aims to analyze the legal ratio and practical implications of Article 54 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code by reviewing the philosophical, sociological, and legal foundations of the birth of this norm. The research method used is normative juridical with a statutory, case, and comparative approach. The results of the study indicate that this provision is a correction to the overly rigid principle of legality while also opening up space for judges to balance legal certainty, justice, and expediency. The implication is that judges have broader discretion to uphold substantive justice, including integration with the values of restorative justice. However, without clear technical guidelines, this provision has the potential to give rise to subjectivity and disparity in decisions. Therefore, the effectiveness of the application of Article 54 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code is very dependent on the consistency of the judge's interpretation, the existence of implementing regulations, and adequate supervision.

LEGISLATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF ARTICLE 54 PARAGRAPH (2) OF THE KUHP CONCERNING THE LAW OF PARDON IN CRIMINAL PROVISION IN INDONESIA Debora Oktarina Sihombing; Yuliati; Bambang Sugiri
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.v5i6.4798

Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) introduces the concept of rechterlijk pardon or judicial forgiveness in Article 54 paragraph (2). This provision grants judges discretionary authority to release perpetrators from criminal penalties by considering the severity of the act, the perpetrator's personal circumstances, or the circumstances after the crime, as long as they take into account a sense of justice and humanity. This article aims to analyze the legal ratio and practical implications of Article 54 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code by reviewing the philosophical, sociological, and legal foundations of the birth of this norm. The research method used is normative juridical with a statutory, case, and comparative approach. The results of the study indicate that this provision is a correction to the overly rigid principle of legality while also opening up space for judges to balance legal certainty, justice, and expediency. The implication is that judges have broader discretion to uphold substantive justice, including integration with the values of restorative justice. However, without clear technical guidelines, this provision has the potential to give rise to subjectivity and disparity in decisions. Therefore, the effectiveness of the application of Article 54 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code is very dependent on the consistency of the judge's interpretation, the existence of implementing regulations, and adequate supervision.

Title

Found 15 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 15 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 15 Documents
Search