Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Yudisial Walisongo Law Review (Walrev) Synergy: Journal of Collaborative Sciences
Rizha Claudilla Putri
Universitas Sriwijaya
Religion Humanities Environmental Science Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

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

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Comparative Regulatory Models for MSME Financial Contract Protection in Indonesia and Philippines Rizha Claudilla Putri; Erisa Ardika Prasada; Moulyta Elgi Trinanda
Walisongo Law Review (Walrev) Vol. 8 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21580/walrev.2026.8.1.31777

Abstract

This article explores the legal protections available to Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) when entering contractual relationships with Financial Service Providers (FSPs) in Indonesia and the Philippines. The study departs from the recurring problem of unequal bargaining positions and the widespread use of standard-form contracts that limit MSMEs' ability to negotiate essential terms. Using a normative legal method supported by statutory analysis and a comparative approach, the research examines the principal regulatory instruments in both jurisdictions—Indonesia's OJK Regulation No. 22 of 2023 and the Philippines' Republic Act No. 11765. The discussion focuses on contractual principles, duties related to market conduct, transparency obligations, and the mechanisms available for consumer protection and enforcement. The comparison demonstrates that Indonesia's regulatory framework emphasizes preventive safeguards, while the Philippines adopts a more assertive model that combines remedial measures, adjudicatory powers, and stronger consumer-oriented guarantees. The findings suggest that Indonesia could enhance its system by reinforcing principle-based supervision, improving suitability assessments, and strengthening its dispute-resolution framework. Through this analysis, the article contributes to ongoing debates on how ASEAN countries might align their approaches to MSME protection in financial contracting. Artikel ini mengeksplorasi perlindungan hukum yang tersedia bagi Usaha Mikro, Kecil, dan Menengah (UMKM) ketika menjalin hubungan kontraktual dengan Penyedia Jasa Keuangan (LKM) di Indonesia dan Filipina. Studi ini berangkat dari masalah yang berulang mengenai posisi tawar yang tidak setara dan penggunaan luas kontrak standar yang membatasi kemampuan UMKM untuk menegosiasikan ketentuan-ketentuan penting. Dengan menggunakan metode hukum normatif yang didukung oleh analisis undang-undang dan pendekatan komparatif, penelitian ini mengkaji instrumen regulasi utama di kedua yurisdiksi—Peraturan OJK Indonesia No. 22 Tahun 2023 dan UU Republik Filipina No. 11765. Diskusi berfokus pada prinsip-prinsip kontraktual, kewajiban terkait perilaku pasar, kewajiban transparansi, dan mekanisme yang tersedia untuk perlindungan dan penegakan hukum konsumen. Perbandingan menunjukkan bahwa kerangka regulasi Indonesia menekankan perlindungan preventif, sementara Filipina mengadopsi model yang lebih tegas yang menggabungkan tindakan perbaikan, kewenangan peradilan, dan jaminan yang lebih berorientasi pada konsumen. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia dapat meningkatkan sistemnya dengan memperkuat pengawasan berbasis prinsip, memperbaiki penilaian kesesuaian, dan memperkuat kerangka penyelesaian sengketa. Melalui analisis ini, artikel ini berkontribusi pada perdebatan yang sedang berlangsung tentang bagaimana negara-negara ASEAN dapat menyelaraskan pendekatan mereka terhadap perlindungan UMKM dalam kontrak keuangan. Keywords: MSME legal protection; standard-form contracts, market conduct regulation.
Liability for Breach of Contract by Autonomous AI in Cross-Border Contracts peter asyer; Perdana Rinces Manalu; Satria Fajar Kuswanto; Rizha Claudilla Putri
Synergy: Journal of Collaborative Sciences Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025): Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Education, Governance, Law, and Socio-Economi
Publisher : Yayasan Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Sisi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.69836/synergy.v1i2.163

Abstract

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has generated new challenges in civil law, particularly regarding breach of contract in cross-border transactions. The autonomous decision-making capacity of AI systems raises questions concerning their legal status and the allocation of contractual liability. This study aims to analyze liability for breaches of contract caused by AI under Indonesian civil law and to examine the determination of the applicable law (lex causae) in cross-border contracts from the perspective of private international law. Using a normative juridical method with conceptual, case-based, and comparative approaches, this research draws upon the Indonesian Civil Code, the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, the Copyright Law, and relevant legal literature. The findings show that autonomous AI cannot be recognized as a legal subject in the Indonesian legal system due to the absence of free will and moral consciousness, so liability remains attributed to the human or legal entity operating the system under the doctrine of vicarious liability. The case of Quoine v B2C2 confirms that contracts executed through algorithms remain legally binding on human or corporate parties rather than AI systems. From a private international law perspective, the study affirms that the use of AI does not alter the fundamental principles for determining lex causae, which continue to rely on connecting factors such as lex loci contractus, lex loci solutionis, and party autonomy.
KETERBATASAN PERTIMBANGAN PEMBUKTIAN DALAM SENGKETA WANPRESTASI PERJANJIAN PINJAMAN DARING Muhammad Syahri Ramadhan; Meria Utama; Rizha Claudilla Putri
Jurnal Yudisial Vol. 19 No. 1 (2026): OPEN LEGAL POLICY
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v19i1.758

Abstract

This study examines the limitations of judicial reasoning in the evidentiary assessment of a breach of contract dispute involving an online loan agreement in Judgment Number 267/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Bdg. The case arose from a claim brought by PT Satustop Finansial Solusi, as the operator of a peer-to-peer lending platform, together with individual lenders, against a borrower who failed to fulfill the repayment obligations under the loan agreement. The central issue concerns the court’s reasoning, which failed to adequately articulate the legal relationship between the platform operator, the lenders, and the borrower, as well as the evidentiary status of the investment history data and loan statements as electronic evidence. However, the facts established at trial, together with the supporting evidence, including the investment history data, digital transfer records, and the platform’s operational mechanism, clearly indicate the characteristics of an information technology-based transaction. This study critiques the evidentiary process at trial, which continues to rely on conventional documentary evidence without making full use of the electronic discovery (e-discovery) framework to verify metadata, digital traces, and the integrity of electronic data, as mandated by the Electronic Information and Transactions Law and the Financial Services Authority regulations. The findings indicate that the panel of judges’ reasoning was sufficient to conclude that a breach of contract had occurred because the defendant admitted the existence of the principal debt, interest, and penalties and failed to fulfill the repayment obligations. Such admission was corroborated by the loan agreement, transfer records, warning letters, and demand letters. The panel of judges also failed to explain the evidentiary status and probative value of exhibit P-8, consisting of investment history data, and exhibit P-9, consisting of loan statements, as electronic information and/or electronic documents. These limitations do not undermine the evidentiary basis for establishing a breach of contract, but the legal reasoning in the judgment does not fully reflect the characteristics of information technology-based peer-to-peer lending transactions.
Co-Authors Erisa Ardika Prasada Meria Utama Moulyta Elgi Trinanda Muhammad Syahri Ramadhan Perdana Rinces Manalu peter asyer Satria Fajar Kuswanto