cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Amelia
Contact Email
melameliaaa99@gmail.com
Phone
+6282214018102
Journal Mail Official
ijssrofficial@gmail.com
Editorial Address
Greenland Sendang Regency Blok. E6 Jl. Pangeran Cakrabuana Sendang, Sumber, Cirebon
Location
Kab. cirebon,
Jawa barat
INDONESIA
International Journal of Social Service and Research
Published by Ridwan Institute
ISSN : 2807839X     EISSN : 28078691     DOI : 10.46799
Core Subject : Economy, Science, Education, Social,
Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Environmental Science Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences
International Journal of Social Service and Research is a double-blind, peer-reviewed academic journal with open access to social and scientific fields. The journal is published monthly by Ridwan Institute. International Journal of Social Service and Research provides a means for sustained discussion of relevant issues that fall within the focus and scopes of the journal, which can be examined empirically. The journal publishes research articles covering all aspects of Social Sciences, Contemporary Political Science, Educational Sciences, Religious Sciences, Economics, Engineering Sciences, Health Sciences and Design Arts Sciences.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Ilmu Sosial (Lain-Lain)
Articles 1,047 Documents
 101   102   103   104   105 
The Institutional Repositioning of the Tax Court Post-Constitutional Court Decision Number 26/PUU-XXI/2023 Juwari Eddy Winarto; Bambang Soesatyo
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1410

Abstract

Article 5 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court provides that: (1) technical judicial supervision of the Tax Court is carried out by the Supreme Court; and (2) organizational, administrative, and financial management of the Tax Court is carried out by the Ministry of Finance. As a result, the oversight of the Tax Court operates under a dual oversight system (two-roof system). The Constitutional Court Decision Number 26/PUU-XXI/2023, dated May 25, 2023, represents a significant milestone in the development of constitutional law and tax law in Indonesia. This ruling asserts that the organizational, administrative, and financial management of the Tax Court under the Ministry of Finance is unconstitutional and conflict withs the principle of an independent judiciary as enshrined in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. According to the Justices, such management must be transferred to the Supreme Court no later than December 31, 2026. This article seeks to analyze and propose the institutional model for the Tax Court following the Constitutional Court's decision specifically, whether the Tax Court will remain a standalone appellate court with the competence to adjudicate tax disputes as it currently exists, or whether it will be integrated into the High Administrative Courts (PT TUN). This article employs a normative legal research method, through statutory, conceptual, and comparative legal methodologies. The research is based on the Tax Court Law, the Administrative Court Law, and the existing judicial framework in Indonesia.
Reconstruction of the Constitutional Court's Authority from a Negative Legislator to a Positive Legislator for the Sake of Substantive Justice Selviana Teras Widy Rahayu; Boy Nurdin
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1413

Abstract

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia, initially established as a negative legislator following Hans Kelsen’s doctrine, possesses the authority to annul laws that contradict the 1945 Constitution. Over the past two decades, strict adherence to this model has revealed critical limitations, as annulment of statutory norms often generates legal vacuums, uncertainty, and potential infringement on citizens’ constitutional rights. This study addresses the evolving role of the Constitutional Court as a positive legislator to ensure substantive justice, particularly when legislative delays hinder the enforcement of citizens’ rights. The research aims to analyze the legal, philosophical, and sociological foundations underpinning this transformation and evaluate the mechanisms through which the Court addresses legal deadlocks. Employing normative legal research, the study examined secondary data from statutory laws, Constitutional Court decisions, legal literature, and scholarly analyses. Data were collected through systematic library research and document review, and analyzed qualitatively using descriptive, interpretative, and conceptual techniques. Findings indicate that the Court’s conditional constitutional and unconstitutional rulings enable the formulation of transitional norms, preventing legal chaos while safeguarding substantive justice. The reconstruction of the Court’s authority allows it to act as an emergency legislator, filling normative gaps without supplanting legislative power. This approach ensures citizens’ constitutional rights are effectively protected, demonstrating a balance between judicial activism and the principles of separation of powers.
An Ideal Formulation of the Prohibition on Dual Positions for Advocacy Organization Leaders from the Perspective of Legislation Andri Darmawan; KMS Herman
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1414

Abstract

This study examines the formulation of an ideal prohibition on dual positions for leaders of advocacy organizations who concurrently serve as state officials, addressing potential conflicts of interest and threats to organizational independence. The background stems from Article 28, paragraph (3) of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, which limits dual positions only with political party leaders and lacks explicit provisions regarding state officials, potentially undermining the independence of advocate organizations and constitutional guarantees of legal certainty and freedom of association. The study aims to provide a normative framework for legislative reform that ensures structural integrity and professional independence. Employing a normative juridical research method, the study utilized statutory and conceptual approaches, analyzing relevant constitutional provisions, statutory laws, and Constitutional Court decisions, including Numbers 014/PUU-IV/2006, 91/PUU-XX/2022, and 183/PUU-XXII/2024. Data were collected through systematic document review and legal content analysis. The results indicate that current regulations inadequately address dual positions, leaving room for structural conflicts of interest. The discussion emphasizes the necessity of reformulating Article 28(3) with clear, non-interpretable norms, operational mechanisms, and harmonization with broader legal principles. The study concludes that legislative amendments are essential to prevent conflicts, strengthen advocate independence, and maintain constitutional and rule-of-law standards in Indonesia.
The Problem of Legal Vacancy in the Regulation of Interim Measures and Emergency Arbitrators in the Indonesian Arbitration System as an Effort to Strengthen the Effectiveness of Decisions Imanudin Suwardi; Subianta Mandala
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1415

Abstract

The development of international arbitration has increasingly emphasized the need for interim protection mechanisms, such as interim measures and emergency arbitrators, to address urgent risks in modern commercial disputes. In Indonesia, Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution provides limited guidance on these mechanisms, creating legal ambiguity and potential ineffectiveness in protecting parties’ rights. This study aims to analyze the legal vacuum in regulating interim measures and emergency arbitrators within the Indonesian arbitration system and propose a normative reconstruction to enhance the effectiveness of arbitral decisions. The research employed a normative juridical approach, combining statute and conceptual methods. Data were collected from Indonesian laws, international conventions, judicial decisions, and scholarly literature, and analyzed using qualitative coding and thematic interpretation to identify gaps, ambiguities, and regulatory disharmony. The findings indicate that the current legal framework lacks explicit definitions, procedural standards, and enforcement mechanisms for interim measures, and does not recognize emergency arbitrators prior to tribunal formation. This deficiency creates temporal gaps, risks of asset dissipation, and potential conflicts with district courts, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of arbitration. The study concludes that comprehensive reform is urgently needed, including explicit legal provisions, harmonization with international standards, and structured implementation procedures, to strengthen legal certainty and the practical effectiveness of arbitration in Indonesia.
The Dynamics of Land Ownership Within the Framework of Agrarian Regulation Asynchrony and its Implications for Land Conflicts and Social Injustice in Indonesia Agusra Yendri; Megawati Barthos
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1416

Abstract

Land ownership and agrarian governance in Indonesia remain complex due to historical legacies, regulatory fragmentation, and sectoral law conflicts, resulting in recurrent land disputes and social inequities. Despite constitutional mandates emphasizing state control and the social function of land, inconsistencies between the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) and various sectoral regulations create legal uncertainty, overlapping authority, and unequal land distribution. This study aims to analyze the dynamics of land ownership within the framework of asynchronous agrarian regulations and to propose a harmonized model for sustainable and socially just land governance. The research employed a normative juridical approach, combining legislative and conceptual analyses of relevant laws, regulations, and academic literature. Data are collected from constitutional provisions, statutory laws, sectoral regulations, and scholarly studies, followed by thematic coding and content analysis to identify regulatory gaps, conflicts, and socio-legal implications. Triangulation ensures validity, and repeated document verification maintains reliability. Findings indicate that regulatory disharmony has contributed to structural inequality, marginalization of communities, and recurrent land conflicts, highlighting gaps in legal synchronization and enforcement of social functions of land. The study’s novelty lies in integrating vertical and horizontal regulatory analyses with prescriptive recommendations for agrarian policy reconstruction, providing a comprehensive framework to achieve legal certainty, equitable land distribution, and social justice. This research offers a theoretical and practical contribution to agrarian legal reform in Indonesia.
Material Review of Law Number 20 of 2025 Concerning the KUHAP by an Advocate in the Constitutional Court: A Constitutional Perspective Fitri Karisma; Effendy Lod Simanjutak
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1417

Abstract

The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) represents a major reform of Indonesia’s criminal procedural law, aiming to enhance effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency in the justice system while upholding constitutional principles and human rights. Despite these objectives, several provisions, particularly Articles 1(22) and 151(2)(b), have raised concerns among legal practitioners regarding potential constitutional conflicts and ambiguities in law enforcement practices. This study aims to analyze the material review filed by advocates at the Constitutional Court, examining the constitutional aspects, legal implications, and protection of human rights within the criminal justice system. The research employed a normative legal method with a statutory and conceptual approach, using primary legal materials, relevant Constitutional Court decisions, and secondary literature. The findings indicate that the contested provisions contain vague norms that may lead to multiple interpretations, potentially enabling abuse of authority by law enforcement and reducing guarantees for a fair trial, legal aid, and due process. The study concludes that judicial review plays a critical role in clarifying legal norms, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles, enhancing legal certainty, and strengthening human rights protection. This process also underscores the strategic role of advocates in maintaining the quality of Indonesia’s criminal procedural law.
Reconstruction of the Concept of Legal Liability for Losses Caused by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Systems Chitto Cumbhadrika; Bambang Soesatyo
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1418

Abstract

The rapid development of autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) systems through machine learning and self-learning algorithms has challenged the traditional fault-based civil liability framework in Indonesia. Classical liability constructs assume that harm can be traced to human intent or negligence, yet autonomous AI can generate unpredictable outcomes without direct human control. This normative juridical study aims to analyze the inadequacy of Indonesian legal norms in attributing responsibility for damages caused by autonomous AI systems and to formulate a more adaptive liability reconstruction model. The research applied a statutory and conceptual approach, examining Articles 1365–1367 of the Civil Code, Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions, and relevant scholarly literature. Data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis, comparing Indonesian legal provisions with international risk-based liability models, and reconstructing a coherent framework for high-risk autonomous AI. The findings reveal that fault-based liability is insufficient for AI ecosystems involving multiple actors and probabilistic decision-making, creating gaps in accountability and victim protection. The study proposes a risk-based liability model integrating strict liability for high-risk AI, joint and several liability, mandatory insurance, burden of proof reversal, and algorithmic transparency. This model is expected to enhance legal certainty, strengthen victim protection, and provide a regulatory foundation for responsible AI governance in Indonesia.
Administrative Clemency and Legal Correction in Article 36 Of the UU KUP: A Proposal for Normative Redesign Adriana Dwi Hardjanti; Marhaeni Ria Siombo
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1411

Abstract

Article 36 of Indonesia’s Law on General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) serves as an important mechanism for addressing administrative sanctions, material errors, and procedural defects in tax administration. However, the provision applies a uniform discretionary formulation through the term “may” to fundamentally different forms of authority, creating ambiguity between administrative clemency and legality-based correction. This design has raised concerns regarding legal certainty, taxpayer protection, and the consistency of administrative decision-making. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the substantive characteristics of Article 36 paragraph (1) and evaluate the compatibility of its discretionary formulation with the principles of legality, legal certainty, and administrative justice. This research employed a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches. Primary legal materials consist of relevant legislation and Constitutional Court decisions, while secondary materials include scholarly books and journal articles on tax law and administrative law. Data were analyzed qualitatively through descriptive, analytical, and prescriptive legal reasoning. The findings reveal an ontological dualism within Article 36, where administrative clemency and legality-based correction are regulated under a single discretionary framework despite their distinct legal characteristics. While administrative clemency appropriately involves discretion, the correction of material inaccuracies and serious procedural defects constitutes a legal obligation that should be treated as bound authority. The study proposes a normative redesign separating these domains and transforming legality-based correction into an imperative duty. Such reconstruction enhances legal certainty, strengthens taxpayer protection, improves judicial review, and reinforces the rule of law within Indonesia’s tax administration system.
Ignoratio Elenchi in the Amendment to the Regional Government Law and its Impact on the Executive Review of Governor Regulations and Gender Equity Rizki Emil Birham; Natsir Asnawi
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1412

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the fallacy of reasoning (ignoratio elenchi) in the Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government, as amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Job Creation, and its consequences for gender equity and the executive review process of gubernatorial regulations. This paper evaluates numerous pertinent legal provisions and doctrines using a normative juridical method using a statutory and conceptual approach. The study's findings show that the norm's modification conflicts with the ratio decidendi of Constitutional Court Decision Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016, which affirms the existence of executive review of gubernatorial regulations, thus reflecting a fallacy of reasoning in the form of ignoratio elenchi. As a result, a legal vacuum has occurred in the administrative oversight mechanism for regional head regulations, which has an impact on weakening legal certainty and opening space for the birth of regulations that conflict with higher regulations and have the potential to discriminate against women, as seen in the practice of gubernatorial regulations that change imperative norms into discretionary norms. Therefore, this study recommends legal reconstruction through strengthening the executive review mechanism, developing preventive oversight mechanisms, and integrating a gender justice perspective into the formation of laws and regulations to ensure normative consistency and protection for vulnerable groups.
Hijrat and Statelessness: Reimagining Agamben’s ‘Bare Life’ through Islamic Migration Theology in Contemporary Asia Jamil Akhtar
International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research
Publisher : Ridwan Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46799/ijssr.v6i6.1431

Abstract

This paper critically analyzes forced migration and statelessness in modern Asia within the theoretical framework of Giorgio Agamben’s bare life and Islamic theological concept of migration. It explores hijrat as a fundamentally and morally negotiated response to persecution, hence separating it from the exclusion. The comparative case studies of Asian refugees suggest that moral aspects, dignity, and communal solidarity contribute to enhancing agency, resilience, and dignity. Incorporating Agamben’s theory into Islamicate ethics, the paper presents a more sophisticated approach to the concepts of statelessness, citizenship, and resistance, thereby outlining the intersection of law, theology, and experience.

Page 104 of 105 | Total Record : 1047

 101   102   103   104   105 

Filter by Year

2021 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 5 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 4 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 3 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 2 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 12 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 11 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 10 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 9 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 8 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 7 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 6 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 5 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 4 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 3 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 2 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 5 No. 1 (2025): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 12 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 11 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 10 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 05 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 4 No. 04 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 4 No. 03 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 4 No. 02 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 4 No. 01 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 4 No. 9 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 8 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 7 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 4 No. 6 (2024): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 12 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 11 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 10 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 9 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 8 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 7 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 6 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 5 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 4 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 3 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 2 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 3 No. 1 (2023): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 12 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 11 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 10 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 9 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 8 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 7 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 6 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 5 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 4 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 3 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 2 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 1 No. 4 (2021): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 1 No. 3 (2021): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 1 No. 3 (2021): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021): International Journal of Social Service and Research Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021): International Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021): International Journal of Social Service and Research More Issue