Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

KEWENANGAN PENYIDIKAN TERHADAP TINDAK PIDANA DI SEKTOR JASA KEUANGAN Nisa Amalina Adlina
Al-Adl : Jurnal Hukum Vol 15, No 2 (2023)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31602/al-adl.v15i2.11088

The purpose of this research is, first, to find out what are the legal implications of the discrepancy between Article 49 Paragraph (5) Law No. 4 of 2023 concerning the Development of Strengthening the Financial Sector with Article 2 Paragraph (1) Implementing Regulation No. 5 of 2023 concerning Investigation of Criminal Acts in the Financial Services Sector. Second, to find out how to resolve the provisions of the authority to investigate criminal acts in the financial services sector. The research method used in this research is normative research which places law as a system of norms. The data collection technique in this study was to use library research and data analysis with a qualitative descriptive analytical approach. The results of this study indicate that there has been a discrepancy in Article 49 Paragraph (5) Law No. 4 of 2023 concerning the Development of Strengthening the Financial Sector with Article 2 Paragraph (1) Implementing Regulation No. 5 of 2023 concerning Investigation of Criminal Acts in the Financial Services Sector which raises a legal implication, namely the existence of a conflict of norms between law Development of Financial Sector Strengthening with implementing Regulation No. 5 of 2023 concerning Investigation of Criminal Acts in the Financial Services Sector which may have an impact on legal uncertainty. As for completion of provisions on the authority to investigate criminal acts in the financial services sector, namely by applying the right to judicial review to the Constitutional Court that the provisions of Article 49 Paragraph (5) Law Development of Financial Sector Strengthening not in line with Article 30 Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution so that this is a way out to resolve the conflict of norms that occurs between law Development of Financial Sector Strengthening with Implementing Regulation No. 5 of 2023 concerning Investigation of Criminal Acts in the Financial Services Sector.

ANALISIS NILAI KEADILAN PADA SYARAT PENAHANAN TERSANGKA DALAM PENYIDIKAN (PERBANDINGAN KUHAP 1981 DAN KUHAP 2025) Nisa Amalina Adlina
Al-Adl : Jurnal Hukum Vol 18, No 1 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31602/al-adl.v18i1.19049

This study was conducted with two primary objectives. First, it examines the concept of justice in relation to the benchmark of investigators’ concerns used to assess and determine the detention of suspects under the subjective detention requirement stipulated in Article 21 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) of 1981. Second, it analyzes a comparative assessment of the value of justice embodied in the detention requirements for suspects under Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP and Article 93 paragraph (5) of the 2025 KUHAP. This research employs normative legal research, positioning law within a system of norms by referring to statutory regulations relevant to the subject matter. Data were collected through library research and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical approach by systematically presenting the issues and examining them in depth. The findings indicate that the value of justice inherent in the subjective detention requirement under Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP—specifically regarding circumstances that give rise to “concerns” that a suspect may abscond, destroy or remove evidence, and/or reoffend—is not aligned with the principle of equality before the law. In practice, this provision relies solely on the subjective assessment of the authorized investigator, thereby creating room for discriminatory treatment in determining whether suspects should be detained. The reform of the KUHAP through Law No. 20 of 2025 reflects an effort to enhance the value of justice by formulating more objective detention requirements under Article 93 paragraph (5) compared to Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP. Nevertheless, the reformed detention provisions still lack clear evaluative benchmarks and implementing regulations, which continues to allow investigative discretion in determining whether a suspect may be detained. Consequently, the value of justice has not yet been fully guaranteed.

TEORI EFEKTIVITAS PADA PROSEDUR PEMERIKSAAN PERKARA DI PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA Cindyva Thalia Mustika; Nisa Amalina Adlina
Al-Adl : Jurnal Hukum Vol 16, No 2 (2024)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31602/al-adl.v16i2.12860

The purpose of this research is first to discover the development of case examination procedures in the current State Administrative Court. Second, to determine the current case examination procedure in the State Administrative Court associated with the Theory of Effectiveness. The type of research used is normative research which places the law as a system of norms, with descriptive analytical methods, namely by describing existing problems and analyzing them. The results of this study show First, there has been an expansion of the competence of the State Administrative Court in receiving, examining & adjudicating a case. The State Administrative Court Law that has not regulated this has resulted in a procedural law vacuum so that the Supreme Court in the 2011-2017 timeframe issued its legal products in the form of Supreme Court Regulations, namely the State Administrative Court Law which previously only regulated 3 types of case examination procedures, namely ordinary examination, simple examination, and rapid examination, currently there are several new case examination procedures regulated in 5 Supreme Court Regulations. Second, in terms of one of the factors in the Theory of Effectiveness, namely the legal factor itself (the law), this factor states that to determine whether a written law functions or not depends on the rule of law itself, one measure of the success of this factor is that the existing rules regarding certain areas of life are quite synchronous / there is no horizontal conflict & hierarchy, but the current main regulation, namely the State Administrative Court Law, in fact has not been synchronised with other regulations issued by the Supreme Court in the form of Supreme Court regulations which aim to fill the void of procedural law, especially the law of examination.

ANALISIS NILAI KEADILAN PADA SYARAT PENAHANAN TERSANGKA DALAM PENYIDIKAN (PERBANDINGAN KUHAP 1981 DAN KUHAP 2025) Nisa Amalina Adlina
Al-Adl : Jurnal Hukum Vol 18 No 1 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31602/al-adl.v18i1.19049

This study was conducted with two primary objectives. First, it examines the concept of justice in relation to the benchmark of investigators’ concerns used to assess and determine the detention of suspects under the subjective detention requirement stipulated in Article 21 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) of 1981. Second, it analyzes a comparative assessment of the value of justice embodied in the detention requirements for suspects under Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP and Article 93 paragraph (5) of the 2025 KUHAP. This research employs normative legal research, positioning law within a system of norms by referring to statutory regulations relevant to the subject matter. Data were collected through library research and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical approach by systematically presenting the issues and examining them in depth. The findings indicate that the value of justice inherent in the subjective detention requirement under Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP—specifically regarding circumstances that give rise to “concerns” that a suspect may abscond, destroy or remove evidence, and/or reoffend—is not aligned with the principle of equality before the law. In practice, this provision relies solely on the subjective assessment of the authorized investigator, thereby creating room for discriminatory treatment in determining whether suspects should be detained. The reform of the KUHAP through Law No. 20 of 2025 reflects an effort to enhance the value of justice by formulating more objective detention requirements under Article 93 paragraph (5) compared to Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP. Nevertheless, the reformed detention provisions still lack clear evaluative benchmarks and implementing regulations, which continues to allow investigative discretion in determining whether a suspect may be detained. Consequently, the value of justice has not yet been fully guaranteed.

Analisis Yuridis Pelanggaran Hak Cipta Dalam Pembajakan Film Di Era Digital Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta Ahmad Rizal; Muthia Septarina; Nisa Amalina Adlina
Indonesian Journal of Islamic Jurisprudence, Economic and Legal Theory Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026)
Publisher : SPT. haria Journal and Education Center Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62976/ijijel.v4i3.2020

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaturan tentang tindakan pembajakan film di era digital menurut Undang-Undang No. 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta dan sanksi pelanggaran hak cipta karya sinematografi menurut Undang-Undang No. 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta dalam pembajakan film di era digital. Metode yang digunakan Penelitian ini, yaitu penelitian hukum normatif. Teknik pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan studi kepustakaan dengan mengumpulkan bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder maupun tersier kemudian semua bahan hukum tersebut dipilih dan disusun berdasarkan permasalahan yang diteliti dan dianalisis secara deskriptif analisis dengan memaparkan permasalahan yang terjadi dan menelitinya. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Pengaturan tindakan pembajakan film di era digital dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta, khususnya pada penjelasan Pasal 40 Ayat (1) huruf m yang mencantumkan karya sinematografi sebagai salah satu jenis ciptaan yang dilindungi dimana terdapat frasa “media lainnya” memiliki makna yang sangat luas karena tidak memiliki batasan yang jelas atau jenis media yang termasuk dalam kategori tersebut, sehingga dapat menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum. Sanksi pelanggaran hak cipta karya sinematografi menurut Undang Undang No. 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta dalam hal pembajakan film di era digital ditentukan dalam Pasal 113. Penegakan hukum diperkuat oleh ketentuan dalam Pasal 55 dan Pasal 56 yang memberikan wewenang kepada aparat penegak hukum untuk mengambil tindakan hukum terhadap pelanggar, termasuk memblokir akun yang menyebarkan konten bajakan.

Title

Found 5 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 5 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 5 Documents
Search