Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 32 Documents
Search

Pertimbangan Hakim Mengenai Kekuatan Mengikat Akta Pembagian Harta Bersama Berdasarkan Keadilan Distributif Aristoteles Pradita, Mahkota Fadia Bella; Nugraheni, Anjar Sri Ciptorukmi
Indonesian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026): Indonesian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (IJSSH)
Publisher : Indonesian Publication Center

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

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the judge’s legal considerations regarding the binding force of the deed of division of joint assets in Decision Number 38/Pdt.G/2020/PN Smn viewed from the perspective of Aristotle’s distributive justice. This study uses prescriptive and applied normative legal methods, with a statutory and conceptual approach. Data collection through literature studies. Types of legal materials include primary and secondary legal materials. Deductive analysis techniques and legal syllogism methods. The results of the study show that the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges are in line with applicable positive law, namely: (1) determination of the object of the dispute as joint assets based on Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 1974; (2) recognition of the Deed of Statement of Division of Gono Gini Assets Number 41 as a legal instrument of choice for the parties after the divorce in accordance with Article 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974; (3) determination of the deed as authentic evidence with perfect evidentiary force referring to Article 1868 and Article 1870 of the Civil Code. The consistency of these considerations was affirmed up to the cassation level through the ne bis in idem decision. Overall, Decision Number 38/Pdt.G/2020/PN Smn has reflected the principle of justice through a combination of procedural justice and Aristotelian distributive justice. Procedural justice is realized through adherence to the principles of pacta sunt servanda and good faith as per Article 1338 of the Civil Code. Distributively, the decision provides proportional economic protection for children as vulnerable parties and recognizes the wife’s immaterial contribution. The judge also upheld corrective justice by rejecting the Plaintiff’s breach of contract to ensure the best interests of the children.
Pembaruan Regulasi Fidusia dalam Mengakomodasi Kepastian Hukum dan Kewenangan Notaris dalam Penghapusan Jaminan Fidusia Multahada, Indy; Anjar Sri Ciptorukmi Nugraheni; Emmy Latifah
Jurisprudentie: Jurusan Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum Vol 12 No 2 (2025): Volume 12 Nomor 2 Desember 2025
Publisher : Jurusan Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum uin alauddin

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24252/jurisprudentie.v12i2.62868

Abstract

This study examines the weaknesses in the regulations governing the removal of fiduciary guarantees. Although the obligation to remove is regulated in relevant laws and regulations, practice shows that thousands of fiduciary guarantees have not been removed even after being paid off, creating legal uncertainty and hindering debtors from reusing the collateral. This study aims to analyse the urgency of updating fiduciary guarantee regulations and to formulate a regulatory framework that can strengthen legal certainty, including proposals for special markings on evidence of fiduciary guarantee objects and confirmation of the authority of the parties entitled to carry out the removal. This study uses a normative-empirical research method, employing a legislative and conceptual approach, with primary legal sources (related legislation) and secondary legal sources in the form of literature and interviews. This study found a gap between regulation and practice. The results of the study indicate the need for regulatory updates, including special markings on fiduciary collateral objects, as is the practice for encumbrances, as well as the affirmation of authority to legal subjects for the removal process. Regulatory updates are expected to create a more accountable removal mechanism and increase legal certainty for all parties.