Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Cita Hukum KRTHA BHAYANGKARA
Widhayaka, Unggul Wibawa
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Fulfillment of Simple Proof Requirements on Bankruptcy Application Based on Sema Number 03 of 2023 Widhayaka, Unggul Wibawa; Retnaningsih, Sonyendah; Ramadhan, Muhammad Rizqi Alfarizi
KRTHA BHAYANGKARA Vol. 19 No. 1 (2025): KRTHA BHAYANGKARA: APRIL 2025
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31599/krtha.v19i1.3784

Abstract

The Supreme Court has issued Circular Letter Number (SEMA) 3 of 2023 which stipulates that simple proof cannot be applied in bankruptcy against apartment and/or flat developers. The circular is predicted to protect consumer interests and eliminate legal remedies in the form of bankruptcy applications to the commercial court, so that they must be submitted as lawsuits to the district court. The circular is not in accordance with the principle of integration in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (KPKPU Law). The KPKPU Law has clearly defined the matter of simple proof, and does not provide special protection for apartment and/or flat developers. Normative research is carried out with doctrinal research and tests the level of synchronization of regulations. The research is evaluative, examining cases that have occurred, based on comparative law. From this study it is concluded that proof is categorized as simple if there is a debt that is due and unpaid and there are two or more creditors. The requirement for simple proof does not consider the complexity of its impact on consumers. SEMA is a policy regulation, so if it conflicts with the regulations above it, the principle of lex superior derogat legi inferiori will apply. SEMA 03 of 2023 cannot change the provisions of the law, so simple proof can still be implemented against apartment developers. SEMA 03 of 2023 is not in line with the KPKPU Law so that by law it should be cancelled.
Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Drafting Judges' Decisions in Commercial Courts Widhayaka, Unggul Wibawa; Hamid, Adnan; Retnaningsih, Sonyendah
Jurnal Cita Hukum Vol. 13 No. 1 (2025): Spring Edition
Publisher : Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15408/jch.v13i1.46677

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is experiencing rapid development due to advances in communication and information technology. AI is designed to create computer systems that can mimic human intellectual capabilities. Optimizing the increasingly widespread use of AI to meet societal needs has also penetrated the legal world. AI plays a significant role in the judicial process, given the increasing burden of trials and efforts to achieve speedy, simple, and low-cost justice. In line with its rapid development, it is necessary to ascertain the legal standing of AI and its role in formulating judicial decisions in courts, particularly in commercial courts. The research in this article uses a normative approach, examining applicable legal norms through dogmatic or doctrinal research. The research approach is conceptual. A literature review was conducted by analyzing previous research in the form of scientific articles, laws and regulations, and mass media related to the discussion. From this research, it can be concluded that the position of AI can be interpreted as that of a child and a parent, as subjects of civil law, who have control, as stipulated in the in loco parentis doctrine. With this doctrine, the use of artificial intelligence prioritizes human responsibility without limiting technological development. Commercial court judges apply straightforward evidentiary procedures, eliminating the need for artificial intelligence assistance in deciding bankruptcy cases. Artificial intelligence remains necessary in commercial courts, limited to the administrative scope of bankruptcy cases.
Co-Authors Adnan Hamid Ramadhan, Muhammad Rizqi Alfarizi Sonyendah Retnaningsih, Sonyendah