cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Jufryanto Puluhulawa
Contact Email
jufryantopuluhulawa@ung.ac.id
Phone
+6281343878760
Journal Mail Official
jurnallegalitas@ung.ac.id
Editorial Address
Law Science Department, Faculty of Law Universitas Negeri Gorontalo Jend. Sudirman street No. 6 Gorontalo City 96128, Gorontalo, Indonesia
Location
Kota gorontalo,
Gorontalo
INDONESIA
Jurnal Legalitas
Published by Universitas Negeri Gorontalo
ISSN : 19795955     EISSN : 27466094     DOI : 10.33756
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Jurnal Legalitas adalah peer review journal yang dikhususkan untuk mempublikasikan hasil penelitian mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum baik penelitian mandiri maupun penelitian yang berkolaborasi dengan dosen, terbit setiap bulan April dan Oktober. Jurnal Legalitas menerima artikel dalam lingkup hukum, ilmu hukum dan kajian isu kebijakan lainnya yang berfokus pada pengembangan dan pembangunan Ilmu Hukum di Indonesia.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 154 Documents
 12   13   14   15   16 
Restitution and Compensation for Victims of Human Trafficking After Law Number 3 of 2026 Shafira Saodana; Siti Zubaidah; Rafika Nur; Syahrul Ago; Asti Dwiyanti
JURNAL LEGALITAS Vol 19, No 2 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Gorontalo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33756/jelta.v19i2.41762

Abstract

Indonesian law has recognised restitution for trafficking victims since 2007, but the right has rarely resulted in actual payment. Law Number 3 of 2026 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims (State Gazette 2026 No. 59), in force since 20 May 2026, was preceded by the 2025 Code of Criminal Procedure (Law Number 20 of 2025), in force since 2 January 2026, which had already extended to all crimes the restitution-enforcement model first enacted for sexual-violence crimes in 2022 and granted every victim a right to state compensation where the offender cannot pay restitution. This article examines which elements of the 2026 framework are genuinely new in Law Number 3 of 2026 and which procedural steps still lack a legal basis. Through doctrinal analysis and a provision-by-provision comparison at three points in time, it finds that binding duties to notify victims and to facilitate loss calculation, pre-judgment seizure as security for restitution, and a general compensation right became applicable to most trafficking victims on 2 January 2026; Law Number 3 of 2026 restates rather than creates them. Its genuinely new elements are narrower: the express naming of trafficking victims as compensation beneficiaries (Article 23(1)), a recovery programme where seized assets cannot cover the restitution owed, new assistance rights, and the authority of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) to use a Victim Endowment Fund. Read together, the two laws still do not specify who initiates a compensation claim, how and when the offender’s inability to pay is established, which institution pays, or how compensation relates to substitute imprisonment and recovery programmes. The article proposes an analytical model of layered and parallel recovery pathways to guide the pending implementing regulations and the harmonisation of Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2022.
Batas Pertanggungjawaban Administratif dan Pidana atas Penyalahgunaan Transfer Pricing dan Under Invoicing dalam Perpajakan Indonesia Muhammad Gibran Fernadri; Vidya Prahassacitta; Paulus Aluk Fajar Dwi Santo
JURNAL LEGALITAS Vol 19, No 2 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Gorontalo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33756/jelta.v19i2.41505

Abstract

Praktik abuse of transfer pricing dan under invoicing menimbulkan persoalan mengenai batas antara pelanggaran administratif dan tindak pidana perpajakan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis batas pertanggungjawaban administratif dan pidana berdasarkan peraturan perpajakan serta putusan pengadilan yang relevan. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus, yang dilengkapi wawancara ahli dan praktisi sebagai data pendukung. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penyimpangan Prinsip Kewajaran dan Kelaziman Usaha (PKKU) tidak secara otomatis memenuhi kualifikasi tindak pidana, melainkan dapat menjadi dasar koreksi fiskal. Pertanggungjawaban pidana mensyaratkan pembuktian unsur perbuatan, bentuk kesalahan, dan akibat sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 38 dan Pasal 39 UU KUP. Kebaruan penelitian terletak pada pengembangan Model Pengujian Bertahap Berbasis Empat Indikator Yuridis, meliputi pengujian kewajaran atau kebenaran nilai transaksi, pembuktian tindakan curang, pemenuhan unsur delik, dan penentuan mekanisme penegakan hukum. Model ini membedakan indikasi yang menjadi dasar Pemeriksaan Bukti Permulaan dari pembuktian yang diperlukan untuk pemidanaan. Mengintegrasikan konsep criministrative law, prinsip una via, dan ultimum remedium, penyelesaian administratif dan pidana harus didasarkan pada kualifikasi perbuatan serta ketentuan prosedural yang berlaku, termasuk kemungkinan penghentian penyidikan untuk kepentingan penerimaan negara. Model tersebut menawarkan kerangka normatif untuk memperkuat kepastian hukum dan proporsionalitas penegakan hukum perpajakan.
The First-Tier Contractual-Evidentiary Gap in Trust-Based Supply Relationships Without Comprehensive Written Contracts Ayu Mustika Pamungkas; Siti Nur Shoimah; Ari Rudata Waspaniadi
JURNAL LEGALITAS Vol 19, No 2 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Gorontalo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33756/jelta.v19i2.41383

Abstract

Supply chain liability studies have predominantly focused on accountability problems arising from complex multi-tier structures. However, liability uncertainty may also emerge within direct first-tier relationships when transactions rely on trust-based practices without comprehensive written contracts. This study examines how contractual uncertainty, evidentiary limitations, and risk allocation problems develop within a first-tier supply relationship in an Indonesian paper-conversion company. Using an empirical socio-legal case study, the research investigates PT Artaniaga Megah Gemilang (PT AMG). Primary data were obtained through two semi-structured interviews with the company director on 10 and 30 July 2026, complemented by purchase orders, internal business correspondence, and relevant Indonesian civil law provisions. The findings indicate that PT AMG’s business relationships remain legally valid despite the absence of comprehensive written contracts, as demonstrated by agreement, continuous performance, and transactional consistency. Nevertheless, limited documentation creates difficulties in establishing contractual obligations, proving modifications, allocating risks, and determining responsibility when disputes arise. Based on this case, the study proposes the concept of the First-Tier Contractual-Evidentiary Gap, referring to an operationally established relationship lacking sufficient contractual and evidentiary mechanisms to clarify obligations, liability, and risk allocation. Furthermore, the study develops the Risk-Based Relational Contract (RBRC) framework, integrating relational flexibility with minimum mechanisms for documentation, adaptation, and risk governance. RBRC seeks to preserve trust while strengthening legal certainty.
No Recording, No Testimony: Comparative Lessons for Regulating Custodial Interrogation in Indonesia Lucky Elza Aditya; Fazal Akmal Musyarri; Firly Amalia Rafi Ridha
JURNAL LEGALITAS Vol 19, No 2 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Gorontalo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33756/jelta.v19i2.39337

Abstract

Article 30 of the KUHAP introduces electronic recording of custodial interrogations but does not regulate implementation, creating legal uncertainty regarding recording standards, procedural safeguards, and the legal consequences of non-compliance. Using a normative legal method with a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks of Colorado, Texas and England, the research addresses the regulatory gap in Article 30 of the KUHAP by proposing a conceptual framework for the implementing Government Regulation. Comparative analysis demonstrates that recording mechanisms differ across jurisdictions but consistently regulate recording standards, storage and data security, mandatory application to serious offences, statutory exceptions, and legal consequences for non-compliance. The proposed regulatory model incorporates mandatory electronic recording, secure evidence management, phased implementation, and risk-based application to strengthen due process, protect suspect rights, and enhance law enforcement accountability.

Page 16 of 16 | Total Record : 154

 12   13   14   15   16 

Filter by Year

2009 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 19, No 2 (2026) Vol 19, No 1 (2026) Vol 18, No 2 (2025) Vol 18, No 1 (2025) Vol 17, No 2 (2024) Vol 17, No 1 (2024) Vol 16, No 2 (2023) Vol 16, No 1 (2023) Vol 15, No 2 (2022) Vol 15, No 1 (2022) Vol 14, No 01 (2021) Vol. 14, No. 2 (2021) Vol 13, No. 02 (2020) Vol 13, No 01 (2020) Vol 12, No 2 (2019) Vol 12, No 1 (2019) VOL 05, NO 01, 2012 Vol 3, No 2, 2010 Vol 2, No 3, 2009 Vol 2, No 1, 2009 More Issue