Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Study of Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 and Analysis of Customary Forest Management Regulations in Indonesia and Malaysia I Made Arya Utama
Focus Journal : Law Review Vol 6 No 1 (2026): Focus Journal Law Review Vol. 6 No. 1 Mei 2026
Publisher : Universitas Bali Dwipa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62795/fjl.v6i1.444

That in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 stipulates that customary forests are forests located in customary areas, no longer state forests, through the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012, the Constitutional Court stipulates that customary forests are forests located in the areas of customary law communities and changes their status so that they are no longer state forests. The urgency of this research aims to examine the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 and Analysis of Customary Forest Management Regulations in Indonesia and Malaysia. The research method used in this research is the normative legal research method. The results of the research show that the Constitutional Court accepted and adjudicated the request for material review of Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry. The considerations given by the Constitutional Court in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 35/PUU-X/2012 broadly state that Article 18B paragraph (2) and Article 28I paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945) have provided recognition and protection for the existence of customary forests in unity with the customary rights territory of a customary law community. This is a consequence of the recognition of customary law as living law that has been in place for a long time, and continues to the present day. Therefore, placing customary forests as part of state forests is a disregard for the rights of customary law communities. Furthermore, the management of customary forests in Indonesia and Malaysia has fundamental differences. Indonesia recognizes customary forests within state forest areas as "rights forests", while Malaysia applies a system in which the management of customary land and forests is more integrated with state agrarian law, especially in the regions of Sabah and Sarawak.

Application of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption in Banking Crime Cases (Study of Several Judges' Decisions) Andrey Anandia Prahidayat; Waluyadi; Ari Nurhaqi
Focus Journal : Law Review Vol 6 No 1 (2026): Focus Journal Law Review Vol. 6 No. 1 Mei 2026
Publisher : Universitas Bali Dwipa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62795/fjl.v6i1.445

This research aims to determine the basis for judges' considerations in rulings on banking cases that are corruption crimes, and to analyze the types of banking crimes that can be categorized as corruption. This research uses a normative juridical method with a statutory and case-based approach. The results show that judges' considerations in banking crime cases and corruption cases in the banking sector have fundamental differences. In banking crime cases, judges emphasize violations of banking regulations, the principle of prudence, and official responsibilities, without directly linking them to state finances. Meanwhile, in corruption cases, judges assess abuse of official authority, unlawful acts in the management of funds, and a direct link to state financial losses. The form of banking crime that can be categorized as corruption is determined by fulfilling the elements of abuse of authority, unlawful acts, and state financial losses. Therefore, this qualification is not automatic but must be based on a comprehensive legal assessment of the act, the perpetrator, and the resulting consequences.

Application of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption in Banking Crime Cases (Study of Several Judges' Decisions): Andrey Anandia Prahidayat, Waluyadi, Ari Nurhaqi
Focus Journal : Law Review Vol 6 No 1 (2026): Focus Journal Law Review
Publisher : Universitas Bali Dwipa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62795/fjl.v6i1.437

This research aims to determine the basis for judges' considerations in rulings on banking cases that are corruption crimes, and to analyze the types of banking crimes that can be categorized as corruption. This research uses a normative juridical method with a statutory and case-based approach. The results show that judges' considerations in banking crime cases and corruption cases in the banking sector have fundamental differences. In banking crime cases, judges emphasize violations of banking regulations, the principle of prudence, and official responsibilities, without directly linking them to state finances. Meanwhile, in corruption cases, judges assess abuse of official authority, unlawful acts in the management of funds, and a direct link to state financial losses. The form of banking crime that can be categorized as corruption is determined by fulfilling the elements of abuse of authority, unlawful acts, and state financial losses. Therefore, this qualification is not automatic but must be based on a comprehensive legal assessment of the act, the perpetrator, and the resulting consequences.

Australian & Indonesian Regulations: Preventive and Repressive Law Enforcement of Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce: Ni Putu Adhya Pradnyaswari
Focus Journal : Law Review Vol 6 No 1 (2026): Focus Journal Law Review
Publisher : Universitas Bali Dwipa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62795/fjl.v6i1.444

Preventive and repressive consumer protection law enforcement is implemented in Australia and Indonesia. Regulations related to legal protection for consumers in electronic transactions or e-commerce in Australia and Indonesia share significant similarities, with the same principled goal of providing legal protection. However, in Australia, this is regulated by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which is part of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. In Indonesia, consumer protection is regulated by Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection (UUPK), despite the differences in the legal systems of Australia and Indonesia. The purpose of this study is to analyze and examine the legal comparison between regulations related to legal protection for consumers in electronic transactions or e-commerce in Australia and Indonesia, focusing on the nature of preventive and repressive law enforcement. The research method used in this study is a normative legal research method using a comparative legal approach. The results of the study show that consumer protection laws in Australia and Indonesia, namely in Australia using a single national regulation that regulates consumer protection and business competition in an integrated manner, so that it is more efficient and coordinated, while in Indonesia the regulations are scattered across various regulations that often overlap with many regulations, causing weak effectiveness of supervision and implementation of consumer protection in the e-commerce sector. Furthermore, there are similarities, namely prohibiting misleading practices including fraud and guaranteeing consumer rights, as well as emphasizing that business actors are obliged to be responsible if there is a loss to consumers.

Environmental Law: A Perspective on Harmonizing Waste Management Regulations: I Gusti Ayu Putri Kartika
Focus Journal : Law Review Vol 6 No 1 (2026): Focus Journal Law Review
Publisher : Universitas Bali Dwipa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62795/fjl.v6i1.445

The increasing volume of waste generated by households/industries (upstream) and the increasing population density from year to year, in this case, the increasing population in each region, has led to an increase in the amount of waste generated by households/industries. Therefore, a revision of Government Regulation Number 81 of 2012 concerning the Management of Household Waste and Household-Like Waste is crucial. The purpose of this study is to provide a model for reviewing the revision of Government Regulation Number 81 of 2012 concerning the Management of Household Waste and Household-Like Waste, by harmonizing Government Regulation Number 81 of 2012 with the provisions of Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management, to avoid normative conflicts in the application of waste management regulations. The research method used is a normative juridical research method, implemented through a statutory regulatory approach, a literature review, and a comparative legal approach to obtain research results. The research findings demonstrate the importance of revising Government Regulation No. 81 of 2012 concerning the Management of Household Waste and Household-Like Waste. This is necessary because Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management and Law No. 18 of 2008 concerning Waste Management emphasize criminal penalties for improperly managed Final Disposal Sites (TPA) that pollute the environment. However, Government Regulation No. 81 of 2012 concerning Waste Management focuses more on administrative technicalities (transportation/disposal) than on criminal acts of pollution, creating ambiguity in the application of criminal articles specifically related to environmental pollution.

Study of Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 and Analysis of Customary Forest Management Regulations in Indonesia and Malaysia: I Made Arya Utama
Focus Journal : Law Review Vol 6 No 1 (2026): Focus Journal Law Review
Publisher : Universitas Bali Dwipa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62795/fjl.v6i1.446

That in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 stipulates that customary forests are forests located in customary areas, no longer state forests, through the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012, the Constitutional Court stipulates that customary forests are forests located in the areas of customary law communities and changes their status so that they are no longer state forests. The urgency of this research aims to examine the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 and Analysis of Customary Forest Management Regulations in Indonesia and Malaysia. The research method used in this research is the normative legal research method. The results of the research show that the Constitutional Court accepted and adjudicated the request for material review of Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry. The considerations given by the Constitutional Court in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 35/PUU-X/2012 broadly state that Article 18B paragraph (2) and Article 28I paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945) haveprovided recognition and protection for the existence of customary forests in unity with the customary rights territory of a customary law community. This is a consequence of the recognition of customary law as living law that has been in place for a long time, and continues to the present day. Therefore, placing customary forests as part of state forests is a disregard for the rights of customary law communities. Furthermore, the management of customary forests in Indonesia and Malaysia has fundamental differences. Indonesia recognizes customary forests within state forest areas as "rights forests", while Malaysia applies a system in which the management of customary land and forests is more integrated with state agrarian law, especially in the regions of Sabah and Sarawak.

Home Page

OAI Link

Editorial Team

Contact

Reviewer

Google Scholar

Contact Name
Luh Ketut Ayu Manik Sastrini

Contact Email
manik.sastrini@gmail.com

Phone
+6287860754888

Journal Mail Official
fjl@balidwipa.ac.id

Editorial Address
JALAN PULAU FLORES 5, DENPASAR, BALI

Location
Kota denpasar,

Bali

INDONESIA

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Home Page

OAI Link

Editorial Team

Contact

Reviewer

Google Scholar

Contact Name Luh Ketut Ayu Manik Sastrini

Contact Email manik.sastrini@gmail.com

Phone +6287860754888

Journal Mail Official fjl@balidwipa.ac.id

Editorial Address JALAN PULAU FLORES 5, DENPASAR, BALI

Location Kota denpasar, Bali INDONESIA

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Contact Name
Luh Ketut Ayu Manik Sastrini

Contact Email
manik.sastrini@gmail.com

Phone
+6287860754888

Journal Mail Official
fjl@balidwipa.ac.id

Editorial Address
JALAN PULAU FLORES 5, DENPASAR, BALI

Location
Kota denpasar,

Bali

INDONESIA