Hisbul Luthfi Ashsyarofi
Unknown Affiliation

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

KEBIJAKAN RUANG TERBUKA HIJAU PUBLIK PEMERINTAH KOTA MALANG DI WILAYAH KECAMATAN KEDUNGKADANG M Fahrudin Andri Andriyansyah; Hisbul Luthfi Ashsyarofi
Jurnal Hukum dan Kenotariatan Vol 6, No 3 (2022)
Publisher : Universitas Islam Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (210.456 KB) | DOI: 10.33474/hukeno.v6i3.17650

Abstract

Kecamatan Kedungkandang memiliki posisi strategis dalam agenda pembangunan di Kota Malang, apalagi ditambah dengan keberadaan exit tol Malang-Pandaan (MAPAN) yang menjadikan kecamatan kedungkandang sebagai pintu masuk untuk memudahkan perpindahan orang dan barang. Oleh karena potensi masifnya pembangunan di wilayah kecamatan ini, maka penting kiranya memastikan adanya kebijakan penataan ruang yang berorientasi pada pemenuhan ruang terbuka hijau publik sebagai upaya untuk melindungi lingkungan hidup akan berkontribusi terhadap kualitas hidup masyarakat di wilayah Kota Malang secara umum dan Kecamatan Kedungkandang secara khusus. Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang, Proporsi ruang terbuka hijau pada wilayah Kota paling sedikit 30 (tiga puluh) persen dari luas wilayah kota, dan proporsi ruang terbuka hijau (RTH) publik pada wilayah kota paling sedikit 20 (dua puluh) persen dari luas wilayah kota. Metodologi Penelitian menggunakan penelitian sosiolegal dengan malakukan kajian secara normatif terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan yang terkait dengan kebijakan tata ruang di Kota Malang. Pada tahap berikutnya dilakukan penelitian secara sosiologis dengan melakukan wawancara secara langsung kepada sejumlah stakeholder. Kebijakan RTH Publik di Wilayah Kecamatan Kedung Kandang dapat dilihat melalui sejumlah Peraturan Daerah yang berkaitan dengan Rencana Tata Ruang dan Tata Wilayah, termasuk juga penjabarannya. Hambatan pelaksanaannya yaitu: Pertama, adanya penetapan RTH Publik dilahan Private, Kedua, Penggunaan Aset Pemkot tidak hanya untuk kepentingan RTH dan Ketiga, Anggaran Pengadaan Ruang Terbuka Hijau Publik yang terbatas.Kata-Kunci: Ruang Terbuka Hijau, Publik, Kedungkandang, Malang Kedungkandang District has a strategic position in the development agenda of Malang City, especially related to the existence of the Malang-Pandaan Toll Gate which makes Kedungkandang District an entry point to facilitate the movement of people and goods. Given the enormous development potential in this district, it is important to ensure a spatial planning policy that is oriented towards fulfilling public green open spaces in terms of environmental protection and contributing to the quality of life of people in the urban area of Malang in general and Kedungkandang Regency in particular. According to Law Number 26 of 2007 concerning Spatial Planning, the percentage of green open space in urban areas is at least 30 (thirty) percent of the urban area, and the percentage of public green open space in urban areas is at least 20 (twenty) percent of the total area urban. Methodology This research uses social law research by conducting a normative study of the laws and regulations related to spatial planning policies in the city of Malang. In the next stage, sociological research is carried out by conducting direct interviews with various stakeholders. Public green open space policies in KedungKandang District can be seen in several regional regulations on land use planning and regional planning, including their descriptions. The implementation constraints are: First, the determination of public green open space on private land, second, the use of city funds that are not only in favor of green open space, and third, the limited budget for the procurement of public green open space.Keywords: Green Open Space, Public, Kedungkandang, Malang
A Double-Edged Sword? Legal Certainty and the Perils of Authority in Indonesia’s Draft Asset Deprivation Act Hisbul Luthfi Ashsyarofi; Arfan Kaimuddin; R.B. Muhammad Zainal Abidin; Bastomi, Ahmad
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.2939

Abstract

The urgency of enacting the Draft Asset Deprivation Act in Indonesia stems from the need to recover assets linked to criminal activities, even in the absence of a conviction. This approach is seen as a preventive measure to safeguard illicitly acquired assets; however, its implementation raises serious legal concerns. The potential violation of property rights—recognized as fundamental human rights—poses risks to justice and legal certainty. The lack of clear procedural safeguards could lead to authority abuse, arbitrary asset seizures, and disproportionate impacts on individuals. This study identifies critical inconsistencies within the draft law. First, the phrase "asset deprivation is only carried out once" in the explanation of Article 3 contradicts Article 5(1)(c), which allows additional asset deprivation if previously seized assets are insufficient. This antinomy undermines legal certainty and fairness. Second, Article 56 permits the auctioning of assets before a final court decision without specifying clear conditions for its application. The absence of rigid legal criteria opens avenues for abuse of authority, further exacerbating risks of injustice. The novelty of this research lies in its critical legal analysis of these contradictions and their implications for property rights and procedural fairness. This research contributes to the global discourse on asset deprivation laws by critically examining the tension between crime prevention and fundamental human rights. The study highlights how ambiguities in legal drafting and the absence of clear procedural safeguards can lead to authority abuse, a challenge faced by many jurisdictions implementing non-conviction-based asset forfeiture (NCB) frameworks. By comparing Indonesia’s Draft Asset Deprivation Act with international best practices, this research offers valuable insights into the legal balance between state power and individual rights, which is crucial in developing laws that do not unduly compromise fundamental freedoms.