Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Hang Tuah Law Journal Unnes Law Journal : Jurnal Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang
Dwi Handayani
Universitas Muslim Indonesia
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Legal Principles of Evidence on Civil Cases in Public Judiciary Dwi Handayani
Hang Tuah Law Journal VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1, APRIL 2017
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Hang Tuah

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30649/htlj.v1i1.89

Abstract

Legal principles in civil procedure law apply to the process of evidence as well, including ‘Audit et alteram partem’ principle which mentions that litigants’ testimony must be presented in hearing session. Based on article 163 HIR/283 RBg, the plaintiff proves with evidence. The judge will make a judgment and through this evidence proceeding, the judge needs to seek for the real evidence disputed both parties in order to make a fair and impartial judgment as the mandate of ‘Audi et alteram partem’ principle. Comparison between the process and the system of evidence on private cases in Anglo-Saxon country (Singapore) is quite similar in the processes. Compared with Indonesia, however, the system of evidence in Singapore seems more ‘open’, while the system in Indonesia is ‘closed’ in its nature. The openness is on broader submission of evidence (not limited to what has been set on the constitution). In the contrary, the system of evidence in Indonesia is restricted by the law (article 164 HIR/284 RBg) and judges only engage on what both parties have submit. This research tries to identify the similarity and the difference on legal principles of evidence among Indonesia, Netherlands and Singapore.
Analyzing Legal Ramifications for Auction Winners: A Case Study of Bekasi and Makassar Court Decisions on Auction Cancellations Dwi Handayani; Muhammad Ilyas; Teguh Kuncoro
Unnes Law Journal Vol. 9 No. 2 (2023): October, 2023
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/ulj.v9i2.37203

Abstract

This article starts with the auction of the valid execution and in accordance with the minutes of auction of the Bekasi State Wealth and Auction Service Office (KPKNL) Number 225/2013 with the winner of the auction in good faith, but the auction was canceled by the court in the decision of the Bekasi State Court Number 412/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Bks on the claim of the legal owner of the collateral object against Auction applicant. The creditor filed for the execution of the dependent rights under Article 6 of the Law on Dependent Rights Number 4/1996 on the basis of default. Furthermore, the decision was appealed and then continued with cassation and finally the Review of case Number 664PK/PDT/2020 with the decision to reject the application for cassation and Judicial Review. Weaknesses in the auction rules result in the rights of auction winners not being accommodated and not protected by law. This article is interesting to researched and is the first time it has happened and has not been regulated in the Technical Guidelines of the Minister of Finance Regulation Number 213/PMK.06/2020. As a comparison, the case in Makassar State Court Number 73/Pdt.G/2023. With the method of statutory approach, cases, and theories of laws, then analyzed in the way of legal reasoning, and interpretation of laws. The results showed the legal consequences of the rights of the auction winners due to court decisions, namely experiencing material losses that must be borne by the Bekasi District Court decision. Solutions offered, updating the Vendu Reglement Ordonantie on the conduct of auctions in Indonesia; perfecting PMK Number 2013/PMK.06/2020 concerning technical guidelines legal. The purpose of the study, to examine the legal consequences of the rights of auction winners because the court decision that decided the auction has no legal force.
Co-Authors Teguh Kuncoro