Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Journal Evidence Of Law PENA LAW: International Journal of Law
Suasoongnern, Sineenart
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

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

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
STRENGTHENING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND SUPERVISION CONCEPT OF NOTARIES BY THE NOTARY SUPERVISORY COUNCIL IN BANKING ACTIVITIES IN INDONESIA: STRENGTHENING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND SUPERVISION CONCEPT OF NOTARIES BY THE NOTARY SUPERVISORY COUNCIL IN BANKING ACTIVITIES IN INDONESIA Nurhadi, Dedi; Surono, Agus; Hamid, Adnan; Suasoongnern, Sineenart
PENA LAW: International Journal of Law Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): September
Publisher : Yayasan Pusat Cendekiawan Intelektual Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56107/penalaw.v3i2.242

Abstract

Currently, the presence of a Notary is also required in the banking sector, where a Notary holds a central professional role by assisting both debtors and creditors in the preparation of principal agreements as well as collateral (accessory) agreements. Banks engaged in lending activities need the services of a Notary. The Notary profession is essential for institutions or companies acting as debtors in the process of obtaining bank credit. To fulfill their duties in the banking sector, Notaries must possess expertise and knowledge in the field of banking. Nowadays, Notaries are frequently found to be working in cooperation with banks or acting as bank partners, with such arrangements formalized in specific agreements. Notaries are often requested to draft credit agreements, in which most clauses are determined by the bank. The legal basis for the responsibilities carried out by a Notary is Article 16 paragraph (1) letter (a) of the Indonesian Law on Notary Office (UUJN), which requires a Notary to act with integrity, honesty, thoroughness, independence, impartiality, and to safeguard the interests of all parties involved in the legal act. A Notary’s independence must align with the principle of legal legality, so that in carrying out their duties, they are not influenced by any party or provide legal document services that favor one party over another. A Notary must uphold the principle of transparency, conduct examinations in accordance with the Notary Law and the Code of Ethics of the profession, and maintain independence and accountability for all information they provide. A potential issue faced by Notaries in the banking sector is the risk of a conflict of interest: on one hand, they must remain independent in performing their functions for the bank, while on the other hand, they receive professional fees from their clients and are bound to fulfill their professional responsibilities. Although Notaries are required to comply with the professional code of ethics and standards established by their professional association—and these must not contradict the Banking Law or its implementing regulations—the role and position of Notaries in banking require supervision by the Notary Supervisory Council. This is to ensure accountability in the Notary’s duties, as their actions may otherwise disadvantage the debtor or result in the preparation of incomplete or flawed deeds. Therefore, transparency in a Notary’s performance has become a matter of concern.
Legal Response to Lone-Wolf Terrorism: A Global Review of Emerging Trends in Criminal Law Lombu, Hadirat Syukur; Shodiq, Md.; Suasoongnern, Sineenart
Journal Evidence Of Law Vol. 4 No. 2 (2025): Journal Evidence Of Law (Agustus)
Publisher : CV. Era Digital Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59066/jel.v4i2.1597

Abstract

Lone-wolf terrorism poses a major challenge to modern criminal justice systems due to its decentralized, unpredictable, and often ideologically motivated nature. Unlike organized terrorist networks, lone actors tend to undergo radicalization independently and lack formal logistical support, rendering conventional law enforcement strategies less effective. This study uses a legal-normative method and a comparative law approach to examine the responses of four countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Indonesia—to this threat through their national criminal law frameworks. The results reveal significant differences in legal definitions, preventive measures, and standards of proof, reflecting the tension between national security needs and the protection of human rights. Common law countries are more likely to adopt proactive measures such as pre-crime intervention and movement restrictions, while civil law countries tend to be cautious in upholding the principle of legality and procedural safeguards. This article proposes universal legal principles that emphasize proportionality, legal certainty, and respect for human rights in responding to individual terrorism. The main contribution of this research lies in the development of a normative framework that can be used to harmonize national and international criminal law responses to the threat of individual terrorism.
The Transformation of State-Owned Enterprise Monopolies and Healthy Market Competition in Bulding Harmonization of Business Competition Law Joyo Santoso, Budi; Hamid, Adnan; Suasoongnern, Sineenart
Journal Evidence Of Law Vol. 4 No. 3 (2025): Journal Evidence Of Law (Inpress Desember)
Publisher : CV. Era Digital Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59066/jel.v4i3.1608

Abstract

The 1945 Constitution, Article 33(2), establishes the state as the controller of important branches of production for the welfare of the people, but its implementation has continued to shift in line with political regime dynamics, from the command economy model of independence to the corporatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) under the New Order and the post-1998 crisis reforms that emphasized healthy competition. The latest debate has emerged from Law No. 1/2025 on SOEs, which grants the President discretionary monopoly powers through Government Regulations without competition impact assessments by the Competition Commission (KPPU), while Law No. 5/1999 requires SOE monopolies to be regulated by law and supervised by the KPPU. The main issue is the normative disharmony between executive monopoly rights and independent oversight mechanisms, which creates legal uncertainty, potential inefficiency, and rent-seeking risks. This study employs a normative-analytical legal approach with literature review and analysis of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal documents, integrating the statute approach and conceptual approach to unravel the relationship between the constitutional framework, monopoly policy, and the principle of fair competition. The findings indicate that Article 86M of Law 1/2025 expands executive discretion without adequate checks and balances, while Law 5/1999 provides a strict oversight framework through the KPPU. The discussion emphasizes the urgency of regulatory harmonization through systematic revision of Article 86M, including mandatory consultation with the KPPU, a sunset clause, and a competition impact assessment, as well as strengthening the independence and advisory role of the KPPU. The implementation of Good Corporate Governance, objective criteria for “national interest,” and periodic evaluation mechanisms will ensure that state-owned enterprise monopolies function in accordance with the objectives of the welfare state without undermining the competitive environment. A phased implementation model over 10 years recommends normative, institutional, operational, and democratic arrangements to achieve a balance between state intervention and sustainable market mechanisms.
Co-Authors Adnan Hamid Agus Surono Joyo Santoso, Budi Lombu, Hadirat Syukur Nurhadi, Dedi Shodiq, Md.