Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

EXECUTION OF MORTGAGE RIGHTS THROUGH AUCTION IMPLEMENTATION WITHOUT COURT DECISION (STUDY OF SUPREME COURT DECISION NUMBER 3600 K/PDT/2020) Dona, Rahma; Setyono, Yoni Agus
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 11 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v4i11.1104

Abstract

The Law on Dependent Rights provides convenience and certainty for Holders of Dependent Rights to carry out execution through public auctions. The execution of the right of dependency can be carried out in two ways, namely the Execution Parate based on Article 6 of the Law on the Rights of Dependency, or through the Fiat  of the District Court Execution based on Article 14 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Law on the Rights of Dependency. In this writing, the main focus is to analyze the lawsuit against the defendant who is considered an unlawful act in the execution of the right of dependency through the implementation of an auction. This paper is expected to provide a comprehensive overview of the legal consequences arising from the existence of a civil lawsuit against the auction of the execution of the Right of Dependency and whether it is possible to conduct an auction without a court determination. The research used the doctrinal research method with the type of research used by the author based on its nature as an explanatory research, using case data in the Supreme Court Decision Number 3600 K/Pdt/2020 associated with principles, legal norms and laws and regulations. Lawsuits and fights create legal uncertainty for the Holder of Dependent Rights, auction buyers and other parties related to the execution of Dependent Rights.
Interpretation of Minimum Age Limit for Regional Head and Vice Regional Head Candidates: Supreme Court Decision Number 23P/HUM/2024 Vs. Constitutional Court Decision Number 70/PUU-XXII/2024 Dayanti, Selly; Setyono, Yoni Agus
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 24 No. 1 (2025): Pena Justisia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v24i1.5390

Abstract

Regarding the provisions on the minimum age limit for candidates for regional heads and deputy heads, has been regulated in Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning Elections. In the latest development, there are decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court which further interpret this minimum age limit. The House of Representatives wanted to revise the Regional Election Law, and the revision plan carried out by the House of Representatives intended to use the SC’s decision as a reference in determining the minimum age limit for candidates for regional heads and deputy heads. The plan has caused controversy because the CC’s decision should have been used as a reference. This article uses a normative legal writing method with a statutory approach, as well as a case approach based on the SC’s decision Number 23P/HUM/2024 and the CC’s decision Number 70/PUU-XXII/2024. This article aims to analyze the interpretation of the minimum age limit based on the decisions of the two institutions, examine the legal force of the two decisions and the implications of the exclusion of the CC’s Decision on democracy and the constitution. This paper finds that legal products tested by the CC have a higher position in the hierarchy of legislation, and the CC's decision is final and binding, so in interpreting the minimum age limit for regional head and deputy regional head candidates, must refer to the CC's decision. If the House of Representatives ignores the CC's decision, it can have a negative impact on the constitution and democracy.
Pengalihan Saham atas Harta Bersama Tanpa Persetujuan Pasangan Kawin dalam Perseroan Terbatas Qonita, Leilani Tertia; Setyono, Yoni Agus
Wajah Hukum Vol 9, No 1 (2025): April
Publisher : Universitas Batanghari Jambi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33087/wjh.v9i1.1741

Abstract

Marriage has legal consequences regarding the presence of joint property. Shares, as part of the joint property, can be transferred to another party. However, the transfer of shares without the consent of one of the spouses, whether husband or wife, has the potential to cause legal issues. In the analysis, the Author uses the doctrinal research method, resulting in a descriptive-analytical writing style. The results of the research indicate that if one party, whether the husband or the wife, transfers shares in a Limited Liability Company that are part of the joint property without the consent of the other party, then the transfer is considered invalid and null and void by law because it is carried out by a party who does not have the authority. The notary has the right to refuse to create an authentic deed related to the transfer because such action violates the applicable legal provisions. If the creation of an authentic deed violates the applicable laws and regulations, the deed may be annulled, and the Notary may face sanctions for ethical violations, administrative sanctions, and civil penalties.
PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM DALAM PERKARA BANTAHAN (DERDEN VERZET) ATAS SENGKETA TANAH MENURUT SURAT EDARAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 3 TAHUN 2018 Retnaningsih, Sonyendah; Suherman; Setyono, Yoni Agus; Ramadhan, Muhammad Rizqi Alfarizi
Jurnal Yuridis Vol 11 No 1 (2024): Jurnal Yuridis
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jyur.v11i1.7743

Abstract

Derden Verzet adalah upaya hukum luar biasa untuk melawan keputusan hakim yang merugikan seseorang. Perlawanan pihak ketiga diatur dalam Pasal 195 ayat (6) dan (7) HIR, atau Pasal 206 ayat (6) RBG. Pasal 195 ayat (6) HIR. Perlawanan pihak ketiga terhadap penyitaan eksekutorial hanya dapat dilakukan setelah ada putusan yang memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap. Pada prinsipnya, perlawanan yang diajukan oleh pihak ketiga terhadap penyitaan eksekutorial tidak menghentikan eksekusi. Dalam hal ini, pihak ketiga harus dapat membuktikan bahwa dia adalah pemilik dari barang yang disita. Selain itu, penentang harus benar-benar memiliki kepentingan untuk meminta pengangkatan penyitaan eksekusi tersebut karena telah merugikan haknya. Jika pihak ketiga dapat membuktikan bahwa barang tersebut adalah miliknya dan bukan milik tergugat, maka penentang harus diakui sebagai penentang yang jujur, dan perintah penyitaan harus dicabut. Dengan demikian, putusan mengenai perlawanan pihak ketiga terhadap penyitaan eksekusi hanya berhubungan dengan pencabutan penyitaan eksekusi atas barang milik pihak ketiga dan tidak memutuskan hak kepemilikan tanah. Namun, dalam prakteknya, terdapat keputusan-keputusan mengenai Derden Verzet yang memutuskan mengenai kepemilikan hak atas tanah yang dipersengketakan. Hal ini menimbulkan masalah hukum dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi karena bantahan atau perlawanan pihak ketiga terhadap keputusan eksekusi hanya berhubungan dengan pencabutan penyitaan eksekusi atas barang milik pihak ketiga.