Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.778
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Rechtsidee Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI)
Loren, Medina
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Instansi Pendidikan Yang Melakukan Penahanan Ijazah Menurut Hukum Perdata Keppy, Christmas Petra; Adrini, Shaina Subha; Loren, Medina; Ariana, Jessica; Nurdiannisa, Alifa; Yuli, Yuliana
Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI) Vol 2, No 3 (2024): September
Publisher : Penerbit Yayasan Daarul Huda Kruengmane

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11746682

Abstract

This study examines the practice of withholding diplomas by educational institutions from legal, sociological, and philosophical perspectives. Diploma withholding is often implemented by schools as a means to enforce tuition payment, but this practice raises legal and ethical controversies. This research employs a literature study method with a descriptive-analytical approach to analyze the legal basis for diploma withholding, its impact on students' rights, and its relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Number 4 on quality education. The findings indicate that withholding diplomas without clear legal grounds violates students' rights and can negatively affect educational access equality. Diploma withholding also exacerbates social and economic disparities. Therefore, legal advocacy and policy changes are needed to ensure that diploma withholding is conducted in accordance with legal provisions and justice principles.
Analisis Hak Para Pekerja Dalam Perusahaan Yang Mengalami Kepailitan Nurdiannisa, Alifa; Hervinia H, Helen; Ariana H, Jessica; Loren, Medina
Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI) Vol 2, No 2 (2024): June
Publisher : Penerbit Yayasan Daarul Huda Kruengmane

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11853588

Abstract

A company is not always in prime condition because certainly in a company experiencing liquidity problems, declining profitability, and ultimately can be threatened with bankruptcy caused by various factors. The process of bankruptcy of a company is brought to court by appointing a curator. In Indonesia, regulations have been set regarding this bankruptcy process which are contained in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. This regulation regulates the rights of workers if they are in a company that is bankrupt so that they know the steps that need to be taken. This study aims so that every worker who experiences something like this knows how the provisions that regulate, the elements that influence and the efforts that can be made in this situation. This study uses a normative juridical method that analyzes the legal norms that have been made. The data source comes from secondary legal data such as Law Number 37 of 2004, Law Number 13 of 2003. The data collection technique is in the form of literature studies. This study resulted in that every company that experiences bankruptcy is required to provide rights to workers who are laid off, namely in the form of pocket money since the bankruptcy decision so that workers' rights must be prioritized, and someone who is appointed to resolve bankruptcy problems is a curator.
Studi Komparasi Mediasi dan Konsiliasi Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Pada Korporasi Hermawati, Mutiara; Rinanti, Pitra; Marito, Eugina Evita; Loren, Medina; Febriani, Anggie
Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI) Vol 3, No 2 (2025): June
Publisher : Penerbit Yayasan Daarul Huda Kruengmane

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15481988

Abstract

In the corporate world, disputes between parties often require efficient resolution methods outside of litigation. Two commonly used mechanisms are mediation and conciliation. Although both fall under alternative dispute resolution (ADR), they differ fundamentally, particularly in the role of the third party. A mediator remains neutral and facilitates negotiation without offering solutions, while a conciliator takes a more active role by providing written proposals to the parties. This article explores the differences, similarities, and legal basis of both mechanisms to offer clearer understanding for business actors in choosing the most suitable resolution method.
Criminal Law Enforcement Corruption Against State-Owned Enterprises After The Enactment of The SOE Law In 2025 Loren, Medina; Prasetyo, Handoyo
Rechtsidee Vol. 13 No. 2 (2025): December
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21070/jihr.v13i2.1101

Abstract

General Background: State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) play a strategic role in Indonesia’s welfare-state framework but remain highly vulnerable to corruption, particularly due to long-standing ambiguities in the legal status of SOE assets. Specific Background: The enactment of Law No. 1 of 2025 and Law No. 16 of 2025 fundamentally redefines SOEs as pure corporate entities by separating SOE assets from state finances and adopting the Business Judgment Rule (BJR). Knowledge Gap: Despite these reforms, there is limited scholarly clarity on how corruption law enforcement should be applied to SOEs after 2025, especially in distinguishing business risk from criminal abuse of authority. Aims: This study analyzes the direction and implications of corruption law enforcement against SOEs following the 2025 SOE Law. Results: Using a normative legal method and case-based analysis of the LPEI, PT BRI, and PT Perindo cases, the study finds that SOE accountability may shift to the public domain when losses arise from conflicts of interest or abuse of authority, thereby nullifying BJR protection. Novelty: This research is among the first to systematically examine corruption enforcement under the post-2025 SOE legal regime using recent cases. Implications: The findings emphasize the need for clear enforcement guidelines to prevent the misuse of BJR while ensuring legal certainty and effective anti-corruption measures in SOEs. Highlights: Asset Separation: SOE assets are legally distinguished from state finances, altering the basis for determining public financial loss. BJR Limitation: The Business Judgment Rule protects good-faith decisions but does not apply where conflicts of interest or abuse of authority exist. Enforcement Direction: Corruption law remains applicable to SOEs when corporate governance failures shift accountability to the public domain. Keywords: State-Owned Enterprises, Corruption Law Enforcement, Business Judgment Rule, Corporate Accountability, Legal Reform
Co-Authors Adrini, Shaina Subha Ariana H, Jessica Ariana, Jessica Febriani, Anggie Handoyo Prasetyo Hermawati, Mutiara Hervinia H, Helen Keppy, Christmas Petra Marito, Eugina Evita Nurdiannisa, Alifa Rinanti, Pitra Yuli, Yuliana