cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
-
Contact Email
-
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
focus@neolectura.com
Editorial Address
Graha Mampang 3rd Floor Suite 305 Mampang Prapatan Raya Kav-100 Pancoran, South Jakarta 12760
Location
Unknown,
Unknown
INDONESIA
FOCUS: Journal of Social Studies
Published by Neolectura
ISSN : -     EISSN : 27982181     DOI : https://doi.org/10.37010/fcs
Core Subject : Economy, Science, Education, Social,
Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other
FOCUS is a Journal of Social Studies Manuscripts for FOCUS must fall into one of the following categories: 1. Sociology 2. Anthropology 3. Psychology 4. Economy 5. Social Geography 6. Politics 7. History 8. Other Social Issues
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Ilmu Sosial (Lain-Lain)
Articles 216 Documents
 18   19   20   21   22 
Asas Similia Similibus dalam Hukum Acara di Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 968K/Pdt.SUS-PHI/2025 pada Tanggal 16 September 2025 Dwi Septianita; Wishnu Dewanto
FOCUS Vol 7 No 02 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Studi Sosial
Publisher : Neolectura

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/fcs.v7i02.2270

Abstract

The mitigation of employment dissolution is fundamentally achievable by fostering a synergistic relationship between the workforce and management. Should dismissal become an inevitable recourse, the process must be preceded by mandatory deliberations as stipulated under the Indonesian Manpower Law (No. 13 of 2003). PT. Korin Living Arts, previously operating as PT. Korin Metal Arts, arbitrarily dismissed long-standing personnel under the pretext of contractual expiration. Due to the absence of mutual agreement or a legally binding decree from the relevant dispute resolution bodies and the Supreme Court, the aggrieved staff initiated legal proceedings through the Industrial Relations Court at the Bandung District Court. Upon reaching the cassation stage, the judiciary invoked the doctrine of similia similibus, noting the substantial factual alignment between the a quo case and a prior landmark ruling (Case No. 1257 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2025). This precedent-based approach ensures that analogous disputes are adjudicated with consistency. This inquiry explores two primary issues: first, the efficacy of the similia similibus principle within Decision No. 968 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2025, specifically where identical defendants face different litigants; and second, the ratio decidendi or legal justifications employed by judges in adopting said principle. Utilizing a normative legal research methodology, this study analyzes both primary and secondary legal sources. The findings suggest that a robust implementation of the similia similibus doctrine is vital for preserving judicial uniformity and bolstering legal predictability within the framework of industrial dispute resolution.
Analisa Relasi Nilai Keadilan dengan Pemberian izin usaha tambang (IUP) kepada Organisasi Masyarakat Keagamaan (Ormas Keagamaan) Punta Yoga Astoni
FOCUS Vol 7 No 02 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Studi Sosial
Publisher : Neolectura

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/fcs.v7i02.2308

Abstract

The granting of mining business licenses (Izin Usaha Pertambangan / IUP) within Prioritized Special Mining Business License Areas (Wilayah Izin Usaha Pertambangan Khusus Secara Prioritas / WIUPK) to religious community organizations (Ormas Keagamaan) intersects with the right to control natural resources, which appears to lean heavily toward specific organizations. The prioritized selection restricted solely to religious organizations themselves indicates that the value of justice seems to not be a consideration in the regulation. This issue is examined using the Normative Legal Research method, which focuses on the study of library materials or secondary sources. The finding is that justice in law cannot be separated from the prevailing legal system in state life, particularly within the Pancasila legal system. At this point, the government in issuing this regulation only looks at the aspect of formal legal certainty and does not consider material legal certainty. Consequently, the government's commitment to realizing justice in the management of natural resources is questioned, which occurs because the government's policy no longer firmly upholds the principles of the Pancasila legal state that is oriented toward a welfare legal state.
Urgensi Hukum Siber Indonesia dalam Menindak Kejahatan Algoritma Suriyanto Suriyanto
FOCUS Vol 7 No 02 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Studi Sosial
Publisher : Neolectura

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/fcs.v7i02.2309

Abstract

The rapid evolution of algorithms and Artificial Intelligence has given rise to a new category of criminal conduct that conventional criminal law fails to recognize: algorithmic crime. Unlike traditional cybercrime, algorithmic crime operates autonomously, transnationally, and often without direct human mens rea. Examples include 24/7 gambling bots that recruit victims, AI-driven ransomware that selects targets, deepfakes used for fraud, and manipulative algorithms in e-commerce and illegal online lending platforms. This article argues that Indonesia’s cyber legal framework is structurally unprepared. First, substantively, Law No. 1 of 2024 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law) and Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) remain anthropocentric, defining perpetrators exclusively as human or legal persons and providing no normative space for autonomous systems as subjects of law. Second, structurally, law enforcement agencies lack digital forensic capacity and are outpaced by perpetrators. Third, culturally, conventional Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) procedures require an average of nine months, whereas data stored on foreign clouds can be deleted within seven days. Using a normative juridical method with conceptual and comparative approaches, this study identifies three fundamental crises: an ontological crisis regarding the legal subject, an epistemological crisis concerning digital evidence, and an axiological crisis in sentencing philosophy. Without comprehensive reform, Indonesia risks becoming a primary market for algorithmic crime. This article proposes a seven-point roadmap: (1) adoption of a system accountability doctrine to prosecute algorithm controllers; (2) enactment of a Digital Criminal Procedure Code enabling 72-hour takedown orders and cryptocurrency asset seizure; (3) ratification of the Budapest Convention and a reciprocal Indonesian CLOUD Act for cross-border data access; (4) establishment of a specialized Cyber Court and algorithmic auditors under the Supreme Court; (5) shifting sentencing policy from incarceration to asset forfeiture; (6) implementation of a National AI Audit System; and (7) strengthening class action mechanisms for victims. Keywords: Cyber Law, Algorithmic Crime, ITE Law, System Accountability, CLOUD Act, Digital Sovereignty.
Analisis Yuridis Pengalihan Hak Tagih (Cessie) dalam Praktik Pinjaman Online Ditinjau dari Perspektif Perlindungan Konsumen Evita Nursanty Iqbal; Gunawan Nachrawi
FOCUS Vol 7 No 02 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Studi Sosial
Publisher : Neolectura

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/fcs.v7i02.2310

Abstract

(This study examines the assignment of receivables (cessie) by online lending platforms (fintech lending) in Indonesia and its implications for consumer protection and digital poverty. The research employs a normative juridical method with statutory and conceptual approaches through a literature review of the Indonesian Civil Code, Consumer Protection Law, and Financial Services Authority regulations. The findings indicate that the practice of cessie in online lending is not specifically regulated, resulting in legal uncertainty, weakened consumer protection, and an increased debt cycle for low-income communities. The study concludes that the government and the Financial Services Authority need to strengthen regulations, supervision, and preventive measures focused on consumer protection to ensure that online lending develops fairly, transparently, and in accordance with economic law principles.
Keadilan Korektif dalam Permohonan Pengurangan Sanksi Administratif Perpajakan Berdasarkan Pasal 36 Undang-Undang tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan: Suatu Analisis Kritis Eka Prasetia Afandi; Yusuf Gunawan
FOCUS Vol 7 No 02 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Studi Sosial
Publisher : Neolectura

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/fcs.v7i02.2311

Abstract

Tax administrative sanctions are necessary to maintain compliance, but their application may create injustice when they fail to distinguish between intent, inadvertence, system constraints, financial hardship, or circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control. This study analyzes the position of corrective justice in requests for the reduction or cancellation of administrative sanctions under Article 36 paragraph (1) letter a of the Law on General Provisions and Tax Procedures and examines whether Minister of Finance Regulation Number 118 of 2024 reflects that principle. The study employs normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, interpreting legal materials in a qualitative-prescriptive manner. The results show that Article 36 paragraph (1) letter a functions as an instrument of corrective justice that provides room to restore balance when a sanction is disproportionate to the taxpayer's fault. Regulation Number 118 of 2024 strengthens legal certainty and procedural justice, yet it potentially narrows the space for corrective justice through the restrictive criteria of inadvertence in Article 27 paragraph (3), the proportional payment-allocation mechanism, and certain formal requirements. The study recommends expanding the criteria, reviewing the payment-allocation mechanism, and adding a justice clause so that the technical regulation remains aligned with the corrective purpose of Article 36.
Analisis Penerapan Keadilan Restoratif Berdasarkan Peraturan Perundang-undangan Teknis Instansi Penegak Hukum dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia Rosalina Indah Sari; Bintang Wicaksono Ajie
FOCUS Vol 7 No 02 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Studi Sosial
Publisher : Neolectura

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/fcs.v7i02.2335

Abstract

This study examines the implementation of restorative justice in the Indonesian criminal justice system and the exercise of investigative discretion. It focuses on the different standards established under Indonesian National Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021, Prosecutor’s Regulation Number 15 of 2020, and Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2024, while considering Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code as the latest statutory framework. This study employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches. Legal materials are examined qualitatively through statutory interpretation and an analysis of discretion, victim protection, and institutional accountability. The findings indicate that Law Number 20 of 2025 has paved the way for a more integrated restorative justice framework. However, differences in standards, procedures, and legal consequences under the Police Regulation, Prosecutor’s Regulation, and Supreme Court Regulation still require further harmonisation. The broadest discretion remains at the investigation stage because the Police Regulation contains open-ended criteria that require investigators to exercise judgment. Without clear guidelines, effective supervision, and adequate accountability, such authority may produce inconsistent decisions and increase the risk of arbitrary or improper use of power. The effectiveness of restorative justice therefore depends on the alignment of institutional regulations, control of investigative discretion, meaningful victim recovery, offender responsibility, and institutional accountability.

Page 22 of 22 | Total Record : 216

 18   19   20   21   22 

Filter by Year

2020 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 7 No 02 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Studi Sosial Vol 7 No 1 (2026): FOCUS: Jurnal Kajian Sosial Vol 6 No 2 (2025): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial Vol 6 No 1 (2025): FOKUS: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial Vol 5 No 2 (2024): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 5 No 1 (2024): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 4 No 2 (2023): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 4 No 1 (2023): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 3 No 2 (2022): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 3 No 1 (2022): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 2 No 2 (2021): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 2 No 1 (2021): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 1 No 2 (2020): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Vol 1 No 1 (2020): FOCUS: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial More Issue