cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Pengelola Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Badan Strategi Kebijakan Hukum
Contact Email
jurnaldejure@kemenkum.go.id
Phone
+628119780028
Journal Mail Official
jurnaldejure@kemenkum.go.id
Editorial Address
Jalan Raya Gandul No.04 Gandul Cinere Depok 16512
Location
Unknown,
Unknown
INDONESIA
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure
Published by Badan Strategi Kebijakan Hukum, Kementerian Hukum Republik Indonesia
ISSN : 14105632     EISSN : 25798561     DOI : 10.30641
Core Subject :
The De Jure Legal Research Journal, known as Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, is a legal publication issued three times a year in March, July, and November. It is published by the Law Policy Strategy Agency of the Ministry of Law of the Republic of Indonesia, in collaboration with the Indonesian Legal Researcher Association (IPHI). This association was legalized under the Decree of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number AHU-13.AHA.01.07 in 2013, dated January 28, 2013. The journal serves as a platform for communication and a means of publishing diverse and relevant legal issues, primarily for Indonesian legal researchers and the broader legal community. In 2024, the management of the De Jure Legal Research Journal will include various stakeholders, as outlined in the Decree of the Head of the Law and Human Rights Policy Agency Number PPH-18.LT.04.03 for 2024, dated February 20, 2024, which establishes a publishing team for the journal. Based on the Decree of the Director General of Higher Education, Research and Technology, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia Number 177/E/KPT/2024 concerning the Accreditation Ranking of Scientific Journals Period II of 2024, dated October 15, 2024, the De Jure Legal Research Journal has received a Scientific Journal Accreditation Ranking of Rank 2 (Sinta-2 or S2). This re-accreditation at Rank 2 applies from Volume 23 Number 1 (2023) through Volume 27 Number 4 (2027), covering publications issued during this period.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 345 Documents
 31   32   33   34   35 
Transformasi Proses Penyidikan Oleh Kepolisian Berdasarkan Perspektif Sistem Peradilan Pidana Ayu Putriyana; Yuliana
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol 26 No 2 (2026): Edisi Juli
Publisher : Law Policy Strategy Agency, Ministry of Law of The Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/dejure.2026.V26.109-126

Abstract

Reforms in criminal justice system policies are a fundamental basis for Indonesian society, because previous policies are no longer relevant to current legal phenomena. This article analyzes the transformation of the investigation process by comparing the regulations in the 1981 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the New Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), and examines the challenges of their implementation. This research uses a normative juridical research method with a descriptive qualitative approach, conducted through a literature review of regulations, doctrines, and relevant legal literature. The research results show that the reform of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) brings significant paradigm shifts toward due process of law, including the affirmation of a minimum standard of two pieces of evidence in the determination of suspects, the strengthening of suspects' rights from the early stages of investigation, the obligation of legal assistance, the expansion of oversight mechanisms, and the recognition of electronic evidence. However, implementing the new Criminal Procedure Code faces various challenges, including regulatory disharmony, limitations in implementing regulations, the readiness of institutions and law enforcement officers, and disparities in technological resources across regions. Therefore, the success of the investigation transformation highly depends on the consistency in officers, the formulation of derivative regulations, strengthening law enforcement officers' capacity, and changing the legal culture so that procedural justice can be effectively realized.
Perilaku Monopoli dalam Perdagangan Elektronik: Analisis Hukum Persaingan Usaha terhadap TikTok Ayup Suran Ningsih; Harumsari Puspa Wardhani
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol 26 No 1 (2026): Edisi Maret
Publisher : Law Policy Strategy Agency, Ministry of Law of The Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/dejure.2026.V26.077-092

Abstract

This article analyzes monopolistic behavior in electronic commerce conducted through Electronic Systems (Perdagangan Melalui Sistem Elektronik/PMSE) on the TikTok platform, particularly through the TikTok Shop feature, from the perspective of Indonesian competition law. The purpose of this study is to examine the compatibility of TikTok's social commerce business model with Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition, as well as regulations governing PMSE. The research method employed is a normative juridical legal approach, focusing on a socio-legal perspective, which relies on secondary legal materials, including statutory regulations, legal doctrine, academic literature, relevant official reports, and empirical data. The results of this study indicate that integrating social media and e-commerce functions into a single digital ecosystem creates the significant potential for monopolistic practices, including control over content-distribution algorithms, dominance over user data, market access discrimination, and predatory pricing. This condition has the potential to harm fair business competition and suppress the sustainability of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). This study concludes that the existing legal framework for business competition has not been fully adaptable to the characteristics of platform-based digital businesses. Therefore, it is necessary to update the regulations framework and strengthen supervision by competition authorities so that the digital commerce ecosystem operates fairly, equitably, and sustainably.
Restorative Justice dalam KUHAP Baru: Antara Kepastian Hukum dan Diskresi Aparat Penegak Hukum Muh Hajoran Pulungan; Mosgan Situmorang
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol 26 No 1 (2026): Edisi Maret
Publisher : Law Policy Strategy Agency, Ministry of Law of The Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/dejure.2026.V26.045-060

Abstract

The restorative justice provisions in the New Criminal Procedure Code mark a paradigm shift in the Indonesian criminal justice system from a retributive approach to a more humanistic and recovery-oriented approach. This study aims to analyze the construction of restorative justice provisions in the New KUHAP and assess their implications for the principle of legal certainty and the limits of the authority of law enforcement officers. The research method used is normative legal research with a statutory and conceptual approach, through an examination of the principles of legality, legal certainty, and the theory of discretion in criminal law. The results show that although restorative justice provides flexibility in case resolution and has the potential to deliver substantive justice, its provisions, which have not been formulated in a limited and measurable manner, have the potential to create disparities in implementation and open up room for abuse of authority. Therefore, the formulation of more stringent norms regarding case boundaries, procedures, and oversight mechanisms is needed to ensure that the application of restorative justice remains within the corridor of the principles of legality and the principle of equality before the law.
Paradoks Hukum Keadaan Darurat dalam Pasal 12 UUD 1945: Menghindari State of Exception yang Permanen dalam Sistem Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia Sudirman Sudirman; Fathul Hamdani; Arifuddin Uksan; Parluhutan Sagala; Irwan Triadi
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol 26 No 2 (2026): Edisi Juli
Publisher : Law Policy Strategy Agency, Ministry of Law of The Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/dejure.2026.V26.157-167

Abstract

This article explores the inherent constitutional tensions within Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which grants the President the authority to declare a state of danger. The primary problem identified in this study centers on the operational paradox of Article 12 through an outdated regulation, namely Law Number 23 of 1959 concerning the State of Danger. The crucial issues of this regulation include the granting of a 'blank check' (blanco mandaat) to the President without clear time limits, the absence of legislative (DPR) and judicial oversight, and its excessively militaristic nature, which renders it incapable of responding to modern crises such as health pandemics or cyber-attacks. Utilizing the analytical framework of the intellectual debate between Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelsen, this research dissects whether Indonesia currently leans toward an absolute decisionist sovereignty model or a controlled normativism model. A crucial issue is identified in the existence of Law Number 23 of 1959 concerning the State of Danger, which is deemed outdated, militaristic, and lacking in oversight, thereby potentially creating "legal black holes". Through a normative legal research method employing statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this article outlines the urgency of reforming emergency constitutional law by reconceptualizing legislative and judicial oversight and adopting the proportionality test. The author argues that without structural reforms to the operational regulations of Article 12, the risk of a transition toward "autocratic legalism" will remain a latent threat to Indonesian democracy. This research finds that emergency law in Indonesia is currently in a perilous condition because it still relies on an outdated regulation (Law No. 23 of 1959). This legacy law grants a "blank check" (blanco mandaat) to the President, lacks a clear time limit, and shuts the door on parliamentary (DPR) and judicial oversight. Furthermore, the law is excessively militaristic and incapable of responding to modern crises such as health pandemics or cyber-attacks. As a concrete solution, this study proposes a new framework, the Pragmatic Hybrid Model. This model provides a middle ground, enabling the government to act swiftly during crises without devolving into a dictatorship.
Penolakan Klaim Asuransi Pertanian dan Pertanggungjawaban Penyelenggara: Disharmoni Hukum Asuransi dan Perlindungan Konsumen Hesti Dwi Astuti; Purnama Sidiq
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol 26 No 2 (2026): Edisi Juli
Publisher : Law Policy Strategy Agency, Ministry of Law of The Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/dejure.2026.V26.143-156

Abstract

Claim rejections in the provision of agricultural insurance often give rise to legal issues as they lie at the intersection of the contractual insurance legal regime and consumer protection law. Most previous studies have focused on purely contractual aspects, leaving a gap in how the position of farmers is assessed within this dual legal regime. This situation has the potential to create legal uncertainty for farmers as policyholders. This study aims to analyze the legal status of farmers as consumers within the legal framework of agricultural insurance and to examine the liability of insurance providers for claim rejections from a consumer protection perspective. This study employs normative legal research, using a statutory and conceptual approach. Legal materials were obtained through a literature review of legislation, expert doctrine, and relevant legal literature. The results of the study indicate that farmers in agricultural insurance can be classified as consumers of financial services who are entitled to legal protection, particularly regarding information transparency, contractual fairness, and dispute resolution. Claim rejections cannot be based solely on a formal interpretation of policy clauses, but must take into account the principles of good faith and balance. If a claim is rejected without valid grounds, the insurer may be held liable under breach-of-contract or tort principles. The focus of this research lies in reconstructing the insurer’s legal liability, which is not based solely on contract law but is integrated with consumer protection instruments. Therefore, regulatory harmonization between insurance law and consumer protection is required to strengthen legal certainty, justice, and the benefits of the law in the administration of agricultural insurance.

Page 35 of 35 | Total Record : 345

 31   32   33   34   35 

Filter by Year

2016 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 26 No 2 (2026): Edisi Juli Vol 26 No 1 (2026): Edisi Maret Vol 25 No 3 (2025): Edisi November Vol 25 No 2 (2025): Edisi Juli Vol 25 No 1 (2025): Edisi Maret Vol 24 No 3 (2024): Edisi November Vol 24 No 2 (2024): Edisi Juli Vol 24 No 1 (2024): Edisi Maret Vol 23 No 4 (2023): Edisi Desember Vol 23 No 3 (2023): Edisi September Vol 23 No 2 (2023): Edisi Juni Vol 23 No 1 (2023): Edisi Maret Vol 22 No 4 (2022): Edisi Desember Vol 22 No 3 (2022): Edisi September Vol 22 No 2 (2022): Edisi Juni Vol 22 No 1 (2022): Edisi Maret Vol 21 No 4 (2021): Edisi Desember Vol 21 No 3 (2021): Edisi September Vol 21 No 2 (2021): Edsi Juni Vol 21 No 1 (2021): Edisi Maret Vol 20 No 4 (2020): Edisi Desember Vol 20 No 3 (2020): Edisi September Vol 20 No 2 (2020): Edisi Juni Vol 20 No 1 (2020): Edisi Maret Vol 19 No 4 (2019): Edisi Desember Vol 19 No 3 (2019): Edisi September Vol 19 No 2 (2019): Edisi Juni Vol 19 No 1 (2019): Edisi Maret Vol 18 No 4 (2018): Edisi Desember Vol 18 No 3 (2018): Edisi September Vol 18 No 2 (2018): Edisi Juni Vol 18 No 1 (2018): Edisi Maret Vol 17 No 4 (2017): Edisi Desember Vol 17 No 3 (2017): Edisi September Vol 17 No 2 (2017): Edisi Juni Vol 17 No 1 (2017): Edisi Maret Vol 16 No 4 (2016): Edisi Desember Vol 16 No 3 (2016): Edisi September Vol 16 No 2 (2016): Edisi Juni Vol 16 No 1 (2016): Edisi Maret More Issue