Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal University Of Bengkulu Law Journal Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan
Ari Wirya Dinata
Faculty of Law Universitas Bengkulu
Economics, Econometrics & Finance Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Freedom Of Religion And Belief Under Supreme Court Verdict Study Case On Supreme Court Decision Number 17/P/HUM/2021 Zainal Amin Ayub; Ari Wirya Dinata; Nur Sulistyo Budi Ambarini; Pipi Susanti; Arie Elcaputera
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 12, No 1 (2023)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.12.1.2023.1-28

Abstract

Freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is one of the human rights stated in the 1945 Constitution. Article 29 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The recognition of religion guarantees the independence of each of its inhabitants to embrace their respective religions and to worship according to their religion or beliefs. The state guarantee on FoRB consists of assurance for the internal and external forums. Freedom to embrace religion or belief is an internal forum for everyone, an absolute right as regulated in ICCPR that Indonesia has also ratified. In fact, this provision is also regulated in Article 28 I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The fulfillment of the right to FoRB is frequently discriminated against in Indonesia. The  issue of forcing to wear school uniforms with hijab for non-Muslim female students is still common in many public schools in Indonesia. The State has issued a joint decree (SKB) of 3 ministers to normalize the discriminatory status quo. However, the attempt to return it to its normal position was thwarted by the LKMM, which carried out the SKB test. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (SC) canceled the SKB because schools have the right to carry out religious education and instilled values. The judges ratio decidendi made by the SC Justices were very dry from the perspective of freedom of religion or belief in canceling the 3 Ministerial Decrees. The judge saw the issue of forcing to wear hijab on non-Muslim students from the perspective of the majority religious thought without noticing that Indonesian society is very diverse. Therefore, the protection of the right to FoRB should also safeguard the religious minorities rights. This paper will examine decision made by judiciary power in term protecting the FoRB right. This verdict will be reviewing toward to justice consideration (ratio decedendi) and legal archicteture in filling the norm FoRB. Moreover, it will also appraise to judicial behavior based on breakfasting theory.
Freedom Of Religion And Belief Under Supreme Court Verdict Study Case On Supreme Court Decision Number 17/P/HUM/2021 Zainal Amin Ayub; Ari Wirya Dinata; Nur Sulistyo Budi Ambarini; Pipi Susanti; Arie Elcaputera
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 12 No 1 (2023)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.12.1.2023.1-28

Abstract

Freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is one of the human rights stated in the 1945 Constitution. Article 29 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The recognition of religion guarantees the independence of each of its inhabitants to embrace their respective religions and to worship according to their religion or beliefs. The state guarantee on FoRB consists of assurance for the internal and external forums. Freedom to embrace religion or belief is an internal forum for everyone, an absolute right as regulated in ICCPR that Indonesia has also ratified. In fact, this provision is also regulated in Article 28 I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The fulfillment of the right to FoRB is frequently discriminated against in Indonesia. The  issue of forcing to wear school uniforms with hijab for non-Muslim female students is still common in many public schools in Indonesia. The State has issued a joint decree (SKB) of 3 ministers to normalize the discriminatory status quo. However, the attempt to return it to its normal position was thwarted by the LKMM, which carried out the SKB test. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (SC) canceled the SKB because schools have the right to carry out religious education and instilled values. The judges ratio decidendi made by the SC Justices were very dry from the perspective of freedom of religion or belief in canceling the 3 Ministerial Decrees. The judge saw the issue of forcing to wear hijab on non-Muslim students from the perspective of the majority religious thought without noticing that Indonesian society is very diverse. Therefore, the protection of the right to FoRB should also safeguard the religious minorities rights. This paper will examine decision made by judiciary power in term protecting the FoRB right. This verdict will be reviewing toward to justice consideration (ratio decedendi) and legal archicteture in filling the norm FoRB. Moreover, it will also appraise to judicial behavior based on breakfasting theory.
Larangan Ekspor Bijih Nikel menurut Peraturan Menteri ESDM nomor 11 Tahun 2019 dan ketentuan GATT 1994 Yolanda Al Vionesya; Deli Waryenti; Ari Wirya Dinata
University Of Bengkulu Law Journal Vol. 9 No. 1 (2024): APRIL
Publisher : UNIB Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33369/ubelaj.v9i1.33183

Abstract

The ban on nickel ore exports carried out by Indonesia through the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Number 11 of 2019 made Indonesia sued at the WTO by the European Union for violating the provisions of the 1994 GATT. This article aims to find out how the validity of the nickel ore export ban based on the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Number 11 of 2019 and GATT Provisions 1994. To answer the formulation of the problem, this study uses the literature study method. Legal materials obtained both primary legal materials and secondary legal materials are grouped and arranged systematically. Furthermore, the legal material is analyzed qualitatively to make it easier to draw conclusions. The conclusion that can be drawn in this study is that the ban on nickel ore exports is legal according to the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Number 11 of 2019, but is contrary to the provisions of GATT 1994. Keywords: Nickel Ore Export Ban; GATT 1994; WTO.
Co-Authors Arie Elcaputera Deli Waryenti Nur Sulistyo Budi Ambarini Pipi Susanti Yolanda Al Vionesya Zainal Amin Ayub