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
lawreviewuph@gmail.com
Editorial Address
Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang - 15811
Location
Kota tangerang,
Banten
INDONESIA
LAW REVIEW
Published by Universitas Pelita Harapan
ISSN : 14122561     EISSN : 26211939     DOI : -
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Law Review is published by the Faculty of Law of Universitas Pelita Harapan and serves as a venue for scientific information in the field of law resulting from scientific research or research-based scientific law writing. Law Review was established in July 2001 and is published triannually in July, November, and March. Law Review provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The aim of this journal is to provide a venue for academicians, researchers, and practitioners for publishing original research articles or review articles. The scope of the articles published in this journal deals with a broad range of topics, including Business Law, Antitrust and Competition Law, Intellectual Property Rights Law, Criminal Law, International Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Agrarian Law, Medical Law, Adat Law, and Environmental Law.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 6 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021" : 6 Documents clear
PENERAPAN PEMBATASAN SOSIAL BERSKALA BESAR (PSBB) AKIBAT PANDEMI CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) SEBAGAI FORCE MAJEURE DALAM KONTRAK [Implementation of Large-scale Social Restrictions due to Coronavirus Disease-19 (Covid-19) Pandemic as Force Majeure in Contract] Velliana Tanaya; Jessica Angeline Zai
Law Review Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i0.3805

Abstract

A contract is an agreement made by the parties in written form. An agreement is a binding agreement between two or more people. This incident resulted in a legal relationship between the parties, which in the agreement included the rights and obligations of each party. In a contract, there is always a force majeure clause, the arrangements are made to protect the debtor when carrying out his obligations there has been an unexpected event beyond his fault. Since the end of 2019 until now the spread of Covid-19 has been very widespread and has had an impact on slowing economic growth, resulting in the fulfillment of contract achievements executed by the parties. This article was made to examine the classification of force majeure in contracts in connection with the widespread spread of Covid-19 which resulted in the contract relationship not going well, but it was not automatically used as an excuse to cancel a contract. The research method used is normative legal research with a legal and conceptual approach. The result of the research is that the force majeure clause can be an attempt to restructure or change the contents of the agreement while taking into account the agreement of the parties through the negotiation process. The concept of force majeure in the context of non-natural disasters as regulated in Presidential Decree No. 12 of 2020, which is the discharge of responsibility and the release of fulfillment of one party's achievements for a while or is called relative force majeure. The parties' discretion is needed to carry out business contract negotiations such as rearranging the fulfillment of achievements as stated in the contract.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: Sebuah perjanjian adalah persetujuan yang dibuat oleh para pihak dalam bentuk tertulis. Perjanjian tersebut kemudian mengikat dua pihak atau lebih. Hal ini menimbulkan hubungan hukum di antara para pihak, di mana di dalamnya terdapat hak dan kewajiban masing-masing pihak. Dalam sebuah perjanjian akan selalu ada klausul force majeure, yang ditujukan utnuk melindungi debitur jika pada saat melaksanakan kewajibannya terdapat kejadian di luar kesalahannya. Sejak akhir tahun 2019 hingga sekarang, penyebaran Covid-19 semakin meluas dan berdampak pada kelesuan pertumbuhan ekonomi, dan pemenuhan kewajiban dalam perjanjian oleh para pihak. Artikel ini bertujuan meneliti klasifikasi force majeure dalam kontrak dalam hubungannya dengan penyebaran Covid-19 yang berdampak pada hubungan kontraktual menjadi tidak lancar, namun tidak otomatis membatalkan perjanjian tersebut. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang dan konseptual. Hasil dari penelitian ialah klausul force majeure dapat menjadi upaya untuk merestuktur atau mengubah isi perjanjian dengan tetap memperhitungkan kesepakatan para pihak melalui proses negosiasi. Konsep force majeure dalam konteks bencana non-alam yang diatur dalam Keputusan Presiden No. 12 Tahun 2020, melepaskan tanggung jawab pemenuhan perjanjian untuk sementara waktu, atau yang disebut dengan force majeure relatif. Keputusan para pihak dibutuhkan dalam bernegosiasi untuk melangsungkan pemenuhan prestasi yang diatur dalam perjanjian.
KEWAJIBAN NOTIFIKASI PENGAMBILALIHAN ASET PERUSAHAAN DALAM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA [Mandatory Notification for Company's Asset Acquisition in the Perspective of Competition Law] Anna Maria Tri Anggraini
Law Review Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i0.3263

Abstract

The Indonesian business competition supervisory agency, KPPU, issued KPPU Regulation No. 3/2019 which regulates the control system for merger, consolidation, and acquisition of company shares (P3S). This regulation was established to address the development of supervisory issues, including the expansion of the term expropriation, which includes the takeover of assets. Although it is not explicitly regulated in Law no. 5/1999 and PP No. 57/2010, the facts on the ground show that the enactment of the KPPU Regulation has been complied with by business actors within a period of more than a year since its stipulation. This article presents two research issues regarding the reasons behind KPPU's issuance of the regulation, and the legal implications of the enactment of new regulations for business actors and practitioners. This article is the result of normative research supported by secondary data in the form of legal regulations in the field of competition, comparisons with several countries, examples of the takeover of Uber assets by Grab, and also using interviews with two KPPU sources. The data was then analyzed qualitatively and concluded by using a deductive method. The conclusion drawn is that the purpose of KPPU in drafting the regulation is to prevent monopolistic practices and unfair business competition, by conducting benchmarking which results in the finding that the takeover of assets can also potentially give a chance to a concentrated market and anti-competitive behavior. The formation of the regulation also has juridical and sociological implications, namely fulfilling the legal aspect and being obeyed by business actors by notifying the takeover of shares and assets.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: Lembaga pengawas persaingan, KPPU, menerbitkan Perkom No. 3/2019 yang mengatur tentang sistem pengendalian atas penggabungan, peleburan dan pengambilalihan saham perusahaan (P3S). Peraturan ini dibentuk untuk menjawab perkembangan isu pengawasan, antara lain perluasan istilah pengambilalihan, yang meliputi pula pengambilalihan aset. Meskipun tidak diatur secara eksplisit dalam UU No. 5/1999 maupun PP No. 57/2010, fakta di lapangan menunjukkan bahwa pengundangan Peraturan KPPU tersebut telah dipatuhi oleh pelaku usaha dalam kurun waktu lebih dari setahun sejak ditetapkannya. Artikel ini mengemukakan dua masalah penelitian tentang hal-hal yang melatarbelakangi KPPU menerbitkan peraturan tersebut, dan implikasi hukum pemberlakukan peraturan baru terhadap pelaku usaha maupun praktisi. Artikel ini merupakan hasil penelitian normatif yang didukung data sekunder berupa peraturan hukum di bidang persaingan, perbandingan dengan beberapa negara, contoh pengambilalihan aset Uber oleh Grab, dan juga menggunakan wawancara dengan dua narasumber KPPU. Data tersebut kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif dan menyimpulkannya dengan metode deduktif. Kesimpulan yang dihasilkan adalah bahwa maksud KPPU menyusun peraturan tersebut adalah melakukan pencegahan terjadinya praktik monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat, dengan melakukan benchmarking yang menghasilkan temuan, bahwa pengambilalihan aset juga dapat berpotensi melahirkan pasar yang terkonsentrasi dan perilaku antipersaingan. Pembentukan peraturan tersebut juga berimplikasi secara yuridis maupun sosiologis, yakni memenuhi aspek legalitas dan dipatuhi pelaku usaha dengan melakukan notifikasi pengambilalihan saham maupun aset.
TANGGUNG JAWAB KORPORASI FINTECH LENDING ILEGAL DALAM PERSPEKTIF PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN [Corporate Liability of Illegal Fintech Lending in the Perspective of Consumer Protection Law] Suseno Adi Wibowo; Yeti Sumiyati
Law Review Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i0.3544

Abstract

The complexity of fintech lending practice has resulted in two problems: first: the regulation of illegal fintech, and second: the corporate liability of illegal fintech lending in terms of consumer protection in the case of PT Vega Data Indonesia. This research uses normative judicial methods by analyzing the laws related to the practice of fintech lending and aimed at illegal fintech lending corporates. The research has found that: first, rules and regulations on illegal fintech lending corporate cannot be found in any Indonesian laws. There has been no sufficient rules and regulations to settle illegal fintech lending problems and this disadvantages consumers. Therefore, special regulations on illegal fintech lending corporation must be set up immediately. Second, both civil and penal liability were imposed on illegal fintech lending corporate PT Vega Data Indonesia through systematic legal interpretation method based on corporate criminal liability doctrine. It is expected that this research may contribute to the efforts to handle illegal fintech lending cases through corporate liability in order to support the attempts of legal protection for customers.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: Kompleksitas penyelenggaraan fintech lending menimbulkan permasalahan, yaitu: pertama, pengaturan korporasi fintech lending ilegal dalam hukum positif Indonesia. Kedua, tanggung jawab korporasi fintech lending ilegal dalam perspektif perlindungan konsumen pada kasus PT Vega Data Indonesia. Metode penelitian secara yuridis normatif dengan menganalisa peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan penyelenggaraan fintech lending serta dihubungkan dengan kasus korporasi fintech lending ilegal. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan: pertama, dalam hukum positif Indonesia tidak ada yang mengatur mengenai korporasi fintech lending ilegal. Aturan-aturan terkait fintech lending belum cukup mengakomodir dan menyelesaikan permasalahan penyelenggaraan fintech lending ilegal yang mengakibatkan lemahnya perlindungan terhadap konsumen, sehingga perlu pembentukan undang-undang secara khusus yang mengatur korporasi fintech lending ilegal. Kedua, selain tanggung jawab secara perdata, tanggung jawab pidana juga dibebankan kepada korporasi fintech lending ilegal PT Vega Data Indonesia melalui metode penafsiran hukum sistematis dan mengacu pada doktrin pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan memberi kontribusi terhadap upaya penanganan perkara fintech lending ilegal melalui penerapan pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi agar dapat memberikan perlindungan hukum yang berkeadilan bagi konsumen.
KUALIFIKASI DAN IMPLIKASI MENGHALANGI PROSES PERADILAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI [Qualifications and Implications of the Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Judicial Process] Ade Mahmud
Law Review Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i0.3323

Abstract

The rule of law of the criminal obstruction of the judicial process raises the debate because it has the flexibility and is applied selectively by law enforcers resulting in injustice. This study aims to determine the qualifications of criminal acts of corruption that hinder the judicial process and analyze the implications of the modus operandi of corruption that hinders the judicial process. This research method using the normative law approach because studying norm, principles relating to Obstruction of Justice offense. The qualification of the offense of Obstruction of Justice may be limited by the method of grammatical interpretation, which implies the word (a) “prevent” is interpreted as restraining, prohibiting the meaning of acts aimed at corruption criminal proceedings unfulfilled; (b) “blocking” interpreted to obstruct, interfere, disturbing, meaning the act aimed to prevent the judicial process from being obstructed and whether the objective is achieved or not is a requirement; and (c) “thwarted” is interpreted as unsuccessful/failed means that the judicial process against corrupt perpetrators is unsuccessful and the business succeeds. The modus operandi of the Obstruction of Justice offense through the power of the community, legal counsel, and political channels implies (a) inhibition of law enforcement efforts; (b) difficulties in the development of cases; and (c) causes high-cost law enforcement.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: Aturan hukum tindak pidana menghalangi proses peradilan (Obstruction of Justice) menimbulkan perdebatan karena memiliki kelenturan dan diterapkan secara tebang pilih oleh penegak hukum, sehingga menimbulkan ketidakadilan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menentukan kualifikasi tindak pidana korupsi yang menghalangi proses peradilan dan menganalisis implikasi modus operandi tindak pidana korupsi yang menghalangi proses peradilan. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan hukum normatif karena mengkaji kaidah, asas-asas yang berkaitan dengan delik Obstruction of Justice. Kualifikasi delik Obstruction of Justice dapat dibatasi dengan metode penafsiran gramatikal yang memaknai kata (a) “mencegah” dimaknai sebagai menahan, melarang artinya perbuatan yang bertujuan agar proses peradilan tindak pidana korupsi tidak terlaksana; (b) “merintangi” dimaknai menghalang-halangi, mengganggu, mengusik, artinya perbuatan yang ditujukan agar proses peradilan terhalang dan apakah tujuan tersebut tercapai atau tidak bukan merupakan syarat; dan (c) “menggagalkan” dimaknai tidak berhasil/menjadi gagal, artinya proses peradilan terhadap pelaku tindak pidana korupsi tidak berhasil dan usaha tersebut berhasil. Modus operandi delik Obstruction of Justice melalui kekuatan masyarakat, kuasa hukum dan jalur politik yang berimplikasi pada (a) terhambatnya upaya penegakan hukum; (b) kesulitan dalam pengembangan kasus; dan (c) mengakibatkan penegakan hukum berbiaya tinggi.
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI DEBITUR BANK MENURUT PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA [Legal Protection for Bank Debtors According to the Laws and Regulations in Indonesia] Sahat Marulitua Sihombing
Law Review Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i0.3758

Abstract

The main activity of commercial banks is providing credit. In providing credit, banks are required to make a careful assessment of the business feasibility of a debtor, by applying the Prudent Banking Principle and Know Your Customer (KYC) Principle. The legal relationship between a bank and a debtor customer is based on an agreement, where the relationship must be based on an agreement and the principle of balance between the two parties. Because the bank as the creditor wants the credit to be returned by the debtor as agreed, the bank becomes dominant in determining the terms of credit, including in designing the substance of the credit agreement. This article will analyze the extent of legal protection for bank debtors according to the laws and regulations in Indonesia. The research is normative juridical method, the legal materials used consist of primary legal materials in the form of laws and derivative regulations, secondary legal materials in the form of books and journals in the field of law, and tertiary legal materials in the form of law dictionaries and encyclopedias. The data used in this research is secondary data. The results show that normative statutory regulations contain legal protection for debtor customers, but in reality, because banks need security for their credit repayments, the clause in the credit agreement does not pay attention to the principle of balance and does not accommodate the rights of the debtor. It is the bank that dominates the design of the credit agreement and as a result, the substance is made more in favor of the bank. The debtor is in a position that must accept the contents of the agreement because he really needs credit, and the debtor has no other choice.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: Kegiatan utama bank umum adalah memberikan kredit. Dalam memberikan kredit, bank wajib melakukan penilaian yang seksama atas kelayakan usaha debitur, dengan menerapkan Prudent Banking Principle dan Know Your Customer (KYC) Principle. Hubungan hukum antara bank dengan nasabah debitur didasarkan pada perjanjian, di mana hubungan dimaksud harus didasari kata sepakat dan adanya asas keseimbangan di antara kedua belah pihak. Karena bank sebagai kreditur menginginkan agar kredit dapat dikembalikan debitur sesuai dengan yang diperjanjikan, bank menjadi dominan dalam menentukan syarat-syarat kredit termasuk dalam merancang substansi perjanjian kreditnya. Artikel ini akan menganalisis sejauh mana perlindungan hukum bagi debitur bank menurut peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Penelitian yang dilakukan bersifat yuridis normatif. Adapun bahan hukum yang dipergunakan terdiri dari bahan hukum primer berupa undang-undang dan peraturan turunannya, bahan hukum sekunder berupa buku-buku dan jurnal di bidang hukum, dan bahan hukum tersier berupa kamus dan ensiklopedia hukum. Data yang dipergunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah data sekunder. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa peraturan perundang-undangan secara normatif telah memuat perlindungan hukum bagi nasabah debitur, namun dalam kenyataannya karena bank memerlukan keamanan atas pengembalian kreditnya, klausula dalam perjanjian kredit kurang memperhatikan asas keseimbangan dan kurang mengakomodasi hak-hak debitur. Pihak bank lah yang dominan mendisain perjanjian kredit dan sebagai akibatnya, substansinya dibuat lebih banyak memihak bank. Debitur berada pada posisi yang harus menerima isi perjanjian dimaksud karena dia sangat membutuhkan kredit, dan debitur tidak mempunyai pilihan lain.
KEABSAHAN PERJANJIAN PINJAMAN MELALUI PENYELENGGARA TEKNOLOGI FINANSIAL TIDAK TERDAFTAR [Validity of Loan Agreement through Unauthorized Financial Technology] Setiawan Wicaksono
Law Review Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i0.3275

Abstract

The practice of fintech (financial technology) as regulated in POJK Number 77/POJK.01/2016 called Information Technology-Based Borrowing and Lending Services (LPMUBT). The parties involved are loan recipients, lenders, and technology-based money borrower. Online lending through fintech different from borrowing in general, fintech involves the Information Technology-Based Borrowing and Lending Service Provider (PLPMUBT). PLPMUBT acts as a marketplace unite lenders and loan recipients. When a loan recipient makes a money loan, an agreement occurs between the lender and the loan recipient (Article 18 letter b POJK Number 77/POJK.01/2016) it is valid because made based on POJK Number 77/POJK.01/2016. PLPMUBT is an institution that has obtained a permit from the Service Authority. At present, many PLPMUBT are not registered in OJK are doing activities in the fintech sector. The problem is loan agreement between the loan recipient and the lender is carried out through an unregistered PLPMUBT. The purpose of this study is to analyze the validity of the loan agreement made through unregistered PLPMUBT so that it is necessary to study the validity of the agreement between the loan recipient and the lender in order to meet legal certainty, especially in the agreement. The research method used is normative juridical, which examines the application of the norms in positive law. The results of this study are the agreement between the lender and the recipient of the loan is valid even though it is made through an unregistered LPMUBT operator.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: Praktik fintech (financial technology) sebagaimana diatur dalam POJK Nomor 77/POJK.01/2016 disebut sebagai Layanan Pinjam Meminjam Uang Berbasis Teknologi Informasi (LPMUBT). Para pihak yang terlibat adalah Penerima pinjaman, Pemberi pinjaman, dan Penyelenggara Layanan Pinjam Meminjam Uang Berbasis Teknologi Informasi. Pinjam meminjam secara online melalui fintech memiliki perbedaan dengan pinjam meminjam umumnya, pada fintech melibatkan Penyelenggara Layanan Pinjam Meminjam Uang Berbasis Teknologi Informasi (PLPMUBT). PLPMUBT berperan sebagai marketplace yang mempertemukan pemberi pinjaman dengan penerima pinjaman. Pada saat penerima pinjaman melakukan pinjaman uang, terjadilah perjanjian antara pemberi pinjaman dengan penerima pinjaman (Pasal 18 huruf b POJK Nomor 77/POJK.01/2016). Perjanjian antara pemberi pinjaman dengan penerima pinjaman sah bila dilakukan berdasarkan POJK Nomor 77/POJK.01/2016. Pada kondisi demikian, PLPMUBT adalah lembaga yang telah mendapatkan izin dari Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Pada saat ini, banyak PLPMUBT yang tidak terdaftar di OJK melakukan kegiatan di bidang fintech. Masyarakat (penerima pinjaman) seringkali tidak mengetahui legalitas PLPMUBT dan melakukan pinjaman uang. Perjanjian pinjam meminjam yang dilakukan melalui PLPMUBT terdaftar, jelas adalah suatu perjanjian yang sah. Permasalahan yang muncul adalah pada perjanjian pinjam meminjam antara penerima pinjaman dengan pemberi pinjaman dilakukan melalui PLPMUBT tidak terdaftar. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menganalisa keabsahan perjanjian pinjaman yang dilakukan melalui PLPMUBT tidak terdaftar, sehingga perlu dikaji keabsahan perjanjian antara penerima pinjaman dan pemberi pinjaman dalam rangka memenuhi kepastian hukum khususnya dalam perjanjian. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif, yaitu mengkaji penerapan kaidah-kaidah atau norma-norma dalam hukum positif. Hasil penelitian ini perjanjian antara pemberi pinjaman dengan penerima pinjaman adalah sah walaupun dilakukan melalui penyelenggara LPMUBT tidak terdaftar.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 6

 1 

Filter by Year

2021 2021


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Volume 25 Issue 1 (March 2025) Volume 24 Issue 2 (November 2024) Volume 24 Issue 1 (March 2024) Volume 23 Issue 2 (November 2023) Volume 23 No. 2 (November 2023) Volume XXII, No. 3 - March 2023 Volume XXIII, No. 1 - July 2023 Volume XXI, No. 3 - March 2022 Volume XXII, No. 2 - November 2022 Volume XXII, No. 1 - July 2022 Volume XX, No. 3 - March 2021 Volume XXI, No. 2 - November 2021 Volume XXI, No. 1 - July 2021 Volume XIX, No. 3 - March 2020 Volume XX, No. 2 - November 2020 Volume XX, No. 1 - July 2020 Volume XVIII, No. 3 - March 2019 Volume XIX, No. 2 - November 2019 Volume XIX, No. 1 - July 2019 Volume XVII, No. 3 - March 2018 Volume XVIII, No. 2 - November 2018 Volume XVIII, No. 1 - July 2018 Vol 11, No 2 (2011) Vol 11, No 1 (2011) Vol 6, No 2 (2006) Vol 6, No 1 (2006) Vol 5, No 3 (2006) Vol 5, No 2 (2005) Vol 5, No 1 (2005) Vol 4, No 3 (2005) Vol 4, No 2 (2004) Vol 4, No 1 (2004) Vol 3, No 3 (2004) Vol 2, No 3 (2003) Vol 2, No 2 (2002) Vol 2, No 1 (2002) Vol 1, No 3 (2002) Vol 1, No 2 (2001) Vol 1, No 1 (2001) More Issue