Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.066
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Ilmu Hukum KYADIREN COMSERVA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi
Rasji Rasji
Universitas Tarumanagara Jakarta, Indonesia
Humanities Computer Science & IT Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

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

Found 6 Documents
Search

 1 
Proses Peninjauan Kembali Sebagai Wewenang Mahkamah Agung Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman Yofi Permatasari; Andika Jinaratana; Rasji Rasji
COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Vol. 2 No. 8 (2022): COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/comserva.v2i8.482

Abstract

The Supreme Court is the highest state court of all jurisdictions (general courts, religious courts, military courts and state administrative courts), which in carrying out their work must be free from government influence and other influences. Based on article 20 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Powers Act which clarifies that the authority of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate at the cassation level, judicial review, or other authorities listed within the provisions of the law. In the case of a court decision at the cassation level, the parties concerned may be inquired to return it to the Supreme Court, unless something else stipulated by law. The decision requested to be re-appeared must take under consideration certain conditions and mechanisms decided by law. Against the decision of justice once more can not be done recovery again.
Kewenangan Mahkamah Agung dalam Proses Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum pada Tingkat Kasasi Raffael Moreno Chrishans; Darell Tri Jaya; Rasji Rasji
COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Vol. 2 No. 8 (2022): COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/comserva.v2i8.489

Abstract

When there is a dispute regarding the authority to adjudicate between one court environment and another court environment, then in the end the Mahkamah Agung (MA) as the highest court will use its power to try and resolve the dispute at the Cassation level or at the Judicial Review (PK) level, with Thus, if disputes over the jurisdiction of adjudicators continue to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice by the litigants, then the accumulation of cases at the Mahkamah Agung (MA) as the court of final instance in relation to these disputes cannot be avoided. The research methodology at this writing is to use juridical research (legal research) is a form of scientific activity in the field of law which uses methods, systematics and a thinking that is specific to studying laws, using certain analysis. The purpose of this paper is: 1) to find out what are the main duties and functions of the Supreme Court. 2) to find out what judicial power is, 3) to know the authority of the Mahkamah Agung in the settlement of unlawful acts disputes at the cassation level.
Efisiensi Garis Litigasi dan Garis Non Litigasi pada Penyelesaian Sengketa Batas Laut Indonesia Menurut Unclos 1982 Albertus Agung Yonathan; Felix Thekno; Rasji Rasji
COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Vol. 2 No. 8 (2022): COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/comserva.v2i8.496

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze the causes of maritime boundary disputes in Indonesia as well as the efficiency of ITLOS in resolving such disputes. Using a statutory approach and a case approach, the author conducted normative legal research. Boundary disputes or disputes involving countries, islands or the sea can be resolved by international courts acting in accordance with international law. There are still many maritime boundary disputes, such as those concerning the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia, the Natuna Sea area between Indonesia and Vietnam, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the South China Sea, and other maritime boundaries. It is these unilateral claims that cause conflict in interstate relations. This can occur due to unresolved international negotiations, violations by one of the parties (countries), unclear sea boundaries, etc. UNCLOS 1982 is a United Nations Convention with a global reach that applies and only applies to countries that have ratified it. Maritime boundary disputes can be resolved in one of two ways: through litigation or through non-litigation. The last resort for resolving maritime boundary disputes is ITLOS. In Indonesia, resolving maritime boundary disputes through litigation has been more successful than resolving disputes through non-litigation.
Peran dan Wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Sistem Pemerintahan Indonesia Aryuni Fitri Djaafara; Jean Claudia; Maulida Syahrin Najmi; Rasji Rasji
COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Vol. 2 No. 8 (2022): COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/comserva.v2i8.500

Abstract

The Constitutional Court is a State Institution Guarding the Constitution which Has the Authority to Decide at the First and Last Levels. As an actor of judicial power, the constitutional function of the Constitutional Court is the judiciary to uphold law and justice. As for the authority of the Constitutional Court that has been listed in Law Number 24 of 2003, namely that the Constitutional Court has the authority to resolve disputes or disputes related to the authority of state institutions that are given authority by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; Decide the dissolution of political parties; Resolving disputes over the results of general elections; and the Constitutional Court is obligated to issue a decision on the recommendation of the House of Representatives (DPR) that the President and/or Vice President are suspected of having violated the law in the form of treason to the State, having committed bribery, disgraceful acts or actions that do not meet the requirements as President and/or Vice President as regulated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
Interpretation Of Legal Philosophy Of Contemporary Law Patrick Winson Salim; Dimas Candra; Rasji Rasji
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi Vol. 4 No. 12 (2023): Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/jist.v4i12.834

Abstract

Law is an inseparable element of human life. Over time, the law undergoes significant changes to adapt to changes in society and social progress. This transformation has created various contemporary legal issues that require deep philosophical understanding. The interpretation of legal philosophy plays a central role in addressing the challenges of contemporary law. This approach not only provides profound insights into the philosophical dimensions of the law but also helps to understand how contemporary law changes and adapts to the dynamics of society and the development of social progress. Legal philosophy is a discipline that seeks to find truth or a deeper understanding of the law. In this context, legal philosophy is not only concerned with technical aspects or concrete legal regulations but also seeks a broader understanding of the values, ethics, morality, justice, and underlying purposes of the law. This research aims to explain "How can the application of the interpretation of legal philosophy address contemporary legal challenges?" This analysis takes a literature study approach as the basis for the paper's preparation. The findings of the exploration indicate that the interpretation of legal philosophy allows for deep critical thinking about contemporary legal issues, helps identify underlying values, and formulates better and fairer solutions to these problems
Indefeasibility of Title and Its Protective Limits in the Contemporary Torrens System Velliana Samudro; Rasji Rasji
Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kyadiren Vol 8 No 1 (2026): Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kyadiren
Publisher : PPPM, Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum (STIH) Biak-Papua

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46924/jihk.v8i1.469

Abstract

Legal certainty in land rights constitutes a fundamental objective of modern land registration systems, including those based on the Torrens system through the application of the principle of indefeasibility of title. This study examines the regulation of the principle of indefeasibility of title under the Land Title Act 2000 of the Northern Territory, analyzes the nature and legal foundations of its exceptions, and evaluates its implications for the protection and certainty of land rights. The research employs a normative legal methodology utilizing statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively through a comprehensive review of relevant legislation, legal doctrines, and scholarly literature. The findings demonstrate that the Land Title Act 2000 adopts a model of qualified indefeasibility, which affords strong protection to registered proprietors while recognizing limited statutory exceptions under Section 198 to preserve a balance between legal certainty and substantive justice. The implementation of this principle, reinforced by the mirror, curtain, and insurance principles, enhances transaction security, minimizes land disputes, and strengthens public confidence in the land registration system. Accordingly, the qualified indefeasibility model effectively promotes legal certainty while safeguarding substantive justice within the contemporary Torrens system.
Co-Authors Albertus Agung Yonathan Andika Jinaratana Aryuni Fitri Djaafara Darell Tri Jaya Dimas Candra Felix Thekno Jean Claudia Maulida Syahrin Najmi Patrick Winson Salim Raffael Moreno Chrishans Velliana Samudro Yofi Permatasari