Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal International Journal of Health, Economics, and Social Sciences (IJHESS) Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum Journal of International Islamic Law, Human Right and Public Policy
Reza Kautsar Kusumahpraja
Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa
Religion Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Public Health Social Sciences Other

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

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Dissenting opinion Hakim Terhadap Kompetensi Absolut Pengadilan Negeri Dalam Perkara Wanprestasi Perjanjian Pembagian Harta Bersama Reza Kautsar Kusumahpraja; M. Reyhan Aldabena; Auliah Ambarwati
Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum Vol 6 No 1 (2026): Maret
Publisher : LOCUS MEDIA PUBLISHING

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56128/jkih.v6i1.677

Abstract

Negara membagi kekuasaan menjadi tiga, yaitu eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif. Di Indonesia, kekuasaan yudikatif dijalankan oleh Mahkamah Agung beserta badan peradilan di bawahnya, yaitu Peradilan Umum, Agama, Tata Usaha Negara, dan Militer, yang masing-masing memiliki kompetensi absolut. Dalam Putusan Nomor 15/Pdt.G/2021/PN.Msh terdapat dissenting opinion terkait gugatan wanprestasi pembagian harta bersama pasca perceraian. Mayoritas hakim menyatakan gugatan tidak dapat diterima, sedangkan hakim dissenting berpendapat Pengadilan Negeri Masohi berwenang. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus, dan konseptual, serta dianalisis secara kualitatif deduktif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dissenting opinion diatur dalam Pasal 14 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009. Putusan yang menyatakan gugatan tidak dapat diterima dinilai keliru, sehingga diperlukan pengaturan teknis mengenai dissenting opinion.
LEGAL PLURALISM AND THE RECOGNITION OF INDIGENOUS LAND RIGHTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDONESIA, THE PHILIPPINES, AND CANADA Achmad Jaelani; Reza Kautsar Kusumahpraja; Dede Agus; Jarkasi Anwar; Aristama Mega Jaya
Journal of International Islamic Law, Human Right and Public Policy Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026): September
Publisher : PT. Radja Intercontinental Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21162464

Abstract

The regulation of customary land rights (hak ulayat) in Indonesia’s agrarian legal system reflects a structural tension between formal recognition and practical implementation. Although the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) recognize indigenous peoples’ rights, such recognition remains conditional and administratively dependent, resulting in a subordinated legal position of indigenous communities. This study comparatively examines customary land governance in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Canada to identify divergent models of indigenous land recognition and to formulate an ideal regulatory framework for Indonesia. This research employs a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. It analyzes Indonesia’s agrarian framework, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of the Philippines, and the doctrine of Aboriginal title within Canadian jurisprudence. Findings indicate that Indonesia applies a conditional administrative recognition model, the Philippines adopts a statutory affirmative model through Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), while Canada develops a constitutional-judicial model grounded in historical occupation, reinforced by fiduciary duty and meaningful consultation. These differences reflect varying degrees of legal certainty and institutional protection of indigenous land rights. The study concludes that Indonesia requires reconstruction toward a constitutional-pluralist model grounded in dignified justice, operationalized through declaratory recognition, binding territorial demarcation, substantive consent requirements, independent dispute resolution mechanisms, and a strict public interest test for state intervention.
Restorative Justice in Civil Disputes: A Progressive Approach to Civil Law Rizki Wahyudi; Natasya Yunita Sugiastuti; Munira; Reza Kautsar Kusumahpraja; Rafiqi
International Journal of Health, Economics, and Social Sciences (IJHESS) Vol. 8 No. 2: April 2026
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Palu

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56338/ijhess.v8i2.10164

Abstract

Restorative justice is an approach to dispute resolution that emphasizes the restoration of relationships between conflicting parties rather than prioritizing punitive outcomes or adversarial judgments. In the context of civil law, this approach offers a more humane, participatory, and solution-oriented alternative, focusing on achieving mutually beneficial and sustainable agreements. This article aims to examine and analyze the application of restorative justice in civil disputes as part of the development of a progressive legal paradigm in Indonesia. The research employs a normative legal method using both conceptual and statutory approaches, supported by a comprehensive review of relevant academic literature. The analysis is conducted qualitatively to explore the relevance of restorative justice principles in civil law practices and their contribution to achieving substantive justice. The findings indicate that the implementation of restorative justice in civil disputes holds significant potential to enhance the effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms. It not only provides legally acceptable outcomes but also helps preserve social relationships between the parties involved. Furthermore, this approach aligns with the principles of progressive law, which prioritize justice, fairness, and social benefit over rigid procedural formalities. However, its implementation still faces several challenges, including the lack of explicit regulatory frameworks, limited understanding among legal practitioners, and low public awareness regarding non-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, strengthening both regulatory support and practical implementation is necessary to optimize the role of restorative justice within Indonesia’s civil law system.
Co-Authors Achmad Jaelani Aristama Mega Jaya Auliah Ambarwati Dede Agus Jarkasi Anwar M. Reyhan Aldabena Munira Natasya Yunita Sugiastuti Rafiqi Rizki Wahyudi