Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
4.31
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Ius Constituendum YUSTISI Yustisi: Jurnal Hukum dan Hukum Islam Nommensen Journal of Legal Opinion Multidiciplinary Output Research for Actual and International Issue (Morfai Journal) Indonesian Journal of Business Analytics (IJBA) Journal of Legal and Cultural Analytics (JLCA) Journal of Administrative and Sosial Science (JASS) Journal of Law, Poliitic and Humanities Jurnal Sosial dan Sains International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum PALAR : Pakuan Law Review
Roida Nababan
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Arts Humanities Astronomy Chemical Engineering, Chemistry & Bioengineering Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Energy Engineering Environmental Science Health Professions Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Materials Science & Nanotechnology Physics Social Sciences Other

Published : 34 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 34 Documents
Search

 1   2   3   4 
Legal Liability Of Ppat Due To Legally Defective Land Sale And Purchase Deed (Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 3507 K/Pdt/2023) Tinrif Valins Dongoran; Roida Nababan; Sovia Febrina Tamaulina Simamora
PALAR (Pakuan Law review) Vol. 12 No. 1 (2026): Volume 12, Number 1 January-March 2026
Publisher : UNIVERSITAS PAKUAN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33751/palar.v12i1.51

Abstract

Abstract Land is an important resource for human life, so the transfer of land rights must be Land is an essential resource for human life; therefore, the transfer of land rights must be carried out in accordance with legal provisions to ensure legal certainty and protection. The Land Deed Official (PPAT) has a strategic role in drafting deeds of transfer of land rights, particularly deeds of sale and purchase, which must fulfill the formal and material requirements as stipulated in statutory regulations. This study aims to examine the implementation of the transfer of certified land rights as regulated by law and to analyze the legal responsibility of the PPAT for a land sale and purchase deed declared legally defective based on Supreme Court Decision Number 3507 K/Pdt/2023. The method used in this research is normative juridical, employing statutory, conceptual, and case study approaches. Data were obtained through library research on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials and were analyzed qualitatively using legal reasoning. The results of the study indicate that a PPAT bears legal responsibility if negligent in carrying out the pre-deed, deed-making, and post-deed procedures, resulting in the sale and purchase deed losing its legal validity. Such responsibility includes civil liability, administrative liability, and professional ethical responsibility. The Supreme Court decision emphasizes that drafting a deed without the consent of the lawful landowner constitutes an unlawful act and renders the deed null and void by law. Therefore, compliance by the PPAT with legal procedures is a key factor in ensuring legal certainty and the protection of land rights. Keywords: Transfer of Land Rights, Legal Responsibility, Unlawful Act
JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF THE “STRONG” TRADEMARK DISPUTE BETWEEN HARDWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED AND PT UNILEVER INDONESIA TBK (A STUDY OF DECISION NUMBER 332 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2021) Geby Sabita Panjaitan; July Esther; Roida Nababan
Multidiciplinary Output Research For Actual and International Issue (MORFAI) Vol. 6 No. 3 (2026): Multidiciplinary Output Research For Actual and International Issue
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The “STRONG” trademark dispute between Hardwood Private Limited and PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk has led to overlapping ownership claims and divergent legal interpretations at different judicial levels. This research seeks to assess the implementation of the legal certainty principle for the initial trademark registrant and to evaluate the legal reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in Decision Number 332 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021 in light of Law Number 20 of 2016. Employing a normative legal research framework, this study applies qualitative analysis through statutory and jurisprudential approaches. The results indicate inconsistencies in applying the first-to-file doctrine, as the Supreme Court granted the trademark rights to PT Unilever by characterizing “Strong” as a descriptive common term that cannot be exclusively owned, notwithstanding Hardwood’s status as the earliest registrant. These findings underscore the importance of conducting thorough substantive examinations by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property during trademark registration to avoid overlapping rights. Additionally, there is a pressing need to reinforce regulations governing the use of common terms in trademarks to promote justice and legal certainty for prior registrants and to prevent monopolization of language in commercial practices. Keywords: Trademarks; Legal Certainty; Trademark Disputes
JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF FORCE MAJEURE CONDITIONS AS A REASON FOR THE FAILURE TO PERFORM THE CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE LESSOR (A STUDY OF DECISION NUMBER 130/Pdt.G/2023/PN.Mdn) Maria Simamora; Roida Nababan; Besty Habeahan
Multidiciplinary Output Research For Actual and International Issue (MORFAI) Vol. 6 No. 3 (2026): Multidiciplinary Output Research For Actual and International Issue
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The occurrence of force majeure in an agreement gives rise to legal consequences concerning the performance of the parties’ obligations and potential losses arising from the agreement. In practice, force majeure is often invoked as a defense to avoid liability for breach of contract, including in lease agreements. In Decision Number 130/Pdt.G/2023/PN Mdn, the defendant failed to carry out the agreed renovation of a commercial building and invoked the Covid-19 pandemic as force majeure. This claim raises legal issues regarding whether the elements of force majeure were fulfilled and the limits of the legal liability borne by the invoking party. The aim of the present research is to evaluate the application of force majeure as a defense against contract violations and to look at the judges' legal rationale in reaching their decision. The study is descriptive in nature, applying a normative legal approach with statute and case approaches, and is qualitatively investigated through library research. Since there is no causal connection between the Covid-19 pandemic and the renovation obligation that was due before it happened, the findings show that the pandemic does not meet the requirements of force majeure as outlined in Articles 1244 and 1245 of the Indonesian Civil Code. The defendant’s financial difficulties were categorized as business risks. The decision reaffirms the principles of pacta sunt servanda, good faith, and the burden of proof on the party invoking force majeure. Keywords: Lease Agreement, Breach of Contract, Force Majeure
ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP GUGATAN WARGA KOTA MEDAN (CITIZEN LAWSUIT) ATAS PERLINDUNGAN CAGAR BUDAYA LAPANGAN MERDEKA Deferman Halawa; Hisar Siregar; Roida Nababan
Kertha Semaya: Journal Ilmu Hukum Vol. 14 No. 3 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Udayana

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24843/KS.2026.v14.i03.p01

Abstract

Perlindungan cagar budaya merupakan kewajiban konstitusional negara berdasarkan Pasal 32 UUD 1945 yang dielaborasi dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2010 Tentang Cagar Budaya. Namun, stagnasi administratif dalam pelaksanaannya menimbulkan persoalan mengenai batas pertanggungjawaban negara atas ketidakbertindakan. Gugatan Warga Kota Medan terhadap perlindungan Lapangan Merdeka dalam Putusan PN Medan Nomor 756/Pdt.G/2020/PN Medan menjadi relevan untuk menguji implementasi norma tersebut sekaligus efektivitas mekanisme citizen lawsuit. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis implementasi ketentuan perlindungan cagar budaya dan pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam menilai kelalaian pemerintah daerah. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun hakim tidak menguraikan norma UU No. 11 Tahun 2010 secara eksplisit, pertimbangannya mencerminkan internalisasi kewajiban aktif pemerintah daerah sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 5, Pasal 31, Pasal 44, dan Pasal 95. Putusan ini memperluas doktrin perbuatan melawan hukum oleh penguasa dengan mengakui ketidakbertindakan administratif sebagai dasar pertanggungjawaban, sehingga menegaskan pentingnya penguatan doktrin tanggung jawab negara dalam perlindungan kepentingan publik. The protection of cultural heritage is a constitutional obligation of the state based on Article 32 of the 1945 Constitution which is elaborated in Law Number 11 of 2010 concerning Cultural Heritage. However, administrative stagnation in its implementation raises questions about the limits of state accountability for inaction. The lawsuit by Medan City residents against the protection of the Merdeka Field in the Medan District Court Decision Number 756/Pdt.G/2020/PN Medan is relevant to test the implementation of the norm as well as the effectiveness of the citizen lawsuit mechanism. This study aims to analyze the application of cultural heritage protection provisions and judges' legal considerations in assessing the negligence of local governments. This research is a normative legal research with a legislative and case approach. The results of the study show that although the judge did not explicitly outline the norms of Law No. 11 of 2010, his considerations reflected the internalization of the active obligations of local governments as stipulated in Article 5, Article 31, Article 44, and Article 95. This ruling expands the doctrine of unlawful acts by the ruler by recognizing administrative inaction as the basis for accountability, thus emphasizing the importance of strengthening the doctrine of state responsibility in protecting the public interest.
Co-Authors Alberto Paskah Tarigan August P silaen Ayu Margareth R. Sitinjak Beriman Jaya Nazara Besty Habeaan Besty Habeahan Deferman Halawa Doni Margipson Sitohang Elis Yesika br Rajagukguk Esther, July Feni Rose Purba Gabe Putra Lumban Batu Geby Sabita Panjaitan Hisar Siregar Immanuel Lamhot Sitanggang Iona Febrina Simanjuntak Jinner Sidauruk Joel Fredly Pakpahan Kezia Br Manalu Laia, Felix Otaris Lesson Sihotang Lestari Siahaan Lusia Nova Hutasoit Maria Simamora Marnipera Ngerika Sihombing Marpaung, Stanley Martono Anggusti Martono Anggustin Masni Purba Mega Sari Purba Meli Hertati Gultom Mokosoina Ntuacademy Pitra Regina Sipahutar Rico Altito Deanova Sidebang Roma Cita Sibatuara Samuel Situmorang Sianturi, Tri Saputra Marojahan Sovia F. T Simamora Sovia Febrina Tamaulina Simamora Sovia Simamora Tarigan, Stevani Teresa Akgriana Putri Manihuruk Tinrif Valins Dongoran Wilda Hilda Riska Laia Yarisman Zai Yose Sitompul