Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Pasal 23 huruf c UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan mengaturbahwa salah satu lingkup diskresi adalah “peraturan perundang-undangan tidak lengkapatau tidak jelas”. Lingkup dimaksud terdiri atas 3 (tiga) unsur, yaitu (1) peraturanperundang-undangan masih membutuhkan penjelasan lebih lanjut; (2) peraturan yangtumpang tindih (tidak harmonis dan tidak sinkron); dan (3) peraturan yang membutuhkanperaturan pelaksanaan, tetapi belum dibuat. Terdapat hubungan yang kontraproduktif danpenyusunan yang tidak sistematis apabila 3 (tiga) unsur tersebut dilihat menurutperspektif UU Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan. Penelitian ini dilakukan melalui 2 (dua) metode, yaitu pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konsep. Norma-norma dalam UU Nomor 12 Tahun 2011merupakan konstruksi yang memberikan pedoman agar regulator membentuk peraturanperundang-undangan secara paripurna, namun hal tersebut seolah dikesampingkan karenainterpretasi Pasal 23 huruf c UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014. Walaupun sistem hukumnasional hendak bertransformasi ke arah progresif, namun tujuan kepastian hukum harustetap dijaga. Guna menghindari munculnya keputusan dan/atau tindakan subjektif daripejabat pemerintahan, maka Pasal 23 huruf c UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 perlu ditinjauulang.

---

Article 23 letter c of Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration states that one

of the scopes of discretion is "incomplete or unclear regulation". It consists of three

elements, namely (1) statutory regulations need further explanation; (2) overlapping

regulations (disharmonious and out of sync); and (3) regulations require implementing

regulation, but it has not been made. Based on perspective of Law No. 12 of 2011 on

Establishment of the Regulation Legislation, the elements of "incomplete or unclear

regulation" have some anomalies. This research was conducted through two methods,

namely the statute approach and the conceptual approach. The norms of Law No. 12 of

2011 as guidance in legislative forming seem to be set aside by the interpretation of

Article 23 letter c of Law No. 30 of 2014. The principle of legal certainty must be

prioritized, even though Indonesia’s legal system is transforming into progressive law

paradigm. In order to avoid the government’s subjective decisions and/or actions, Article

23 letter c of Law No. 30 of 2014 needs to be reviewed"

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan Majelis Pengawas Daerah sebelum Judicial Review Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2004 dengan Majelis Kehormatan Notaris Wilayah setelah keluarnya Undang-Undang No. 2 Tahun 2014 perubahan atas Undang-Undang No.30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris. Selanjutnya Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat bagaimana keterkaitan tugas dan wewenang dari majelis kehormatan notaris wilayah tersebut telah menjamin kerahasiaan yang harus dijaga oleh notaris. Metode penelitian adalah yuridis normatif. Data pokok dalam penelitian adalah data sekunder. Pengumpulan data dalam penelitian ini dilakukan dengan cara penelitian kepustakaan dan penelitian lapangan dan dengan data sekunder. Dari hasil penelitian kewenangan Majelis pengawas Daerah sebelumnya untuk pengambilan fotokopi minuta akta dan pemanggilan notaris oleh penyidik pada dasarnya sama dengan kewenangan majelis kehormatan notaris wilayah karna hanya melimpakan sebagian dari wewenang majelis pengawas daerah kepada majelis kehormatan notaris wilayah. Dilihat dari perbedaannya, adanya unsur kepolisian sebagai pendampingan notaris yang baru hadir pada majelis kehormatan notaris yang dimasukkan ke dalam unsur ahli pada susunan keanggotaan.Unsur kepolisian inilah yang bertujuan agar adanya koordinasi antara penyidik dengan Majelis kehormatan Notaris dengan baik dan transparan. Disarankan supaya adanya aturan teknis mengenai pendampingan Notaris tersebut dibuat aturan teknis supaya kita tahu bagaimana tugasnya mendampingi notaris tersebut.Selanjutnya diharapkan agar rancangan Keputusan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Tahun 2016 tentang Tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas Majelis Kehormatan Notaris segera disahkan.Kata kunci : Notaris, Majelis Pengawas Daerah, Majelis Kehormatan Notaris Wilayah.

---

ABSTRACTThis study aims to compare the Regional Supervisory Board before the Judicial Review Act no.30 of 2004 with the Regional Notary Council of Notaries after the issuance of Law no. 2 Year 2014 amendment to Law No. 30 Year 2004 regarding Position of Notary. Furthermore, this study aims to see how the relation between the duties and authorities of the honorary board of the notary of the territory has guaranteed the secrecy that should be maintained by the notary. The research method is normative juridical. The main data in the study is secondary data. Data collection in this research is done by library research and field research and with secondary data. From the result of the research of the authority of the previous Regional Supervisory Board for the taking of the photocopy of the deed ministry and the notarial notification by the investigator is essentially the same as the honorarium of the notary public of the notary territory because it only imposes part of the authority of the regional supervisory council to the honorary council of notary of the territory. Judging from the difference, the existence of the police element as a new notary accompaniment present at the notary honorary board included in the expert element on the composition of membership. Police unit is intended to coordinate between the investigator with the Board of honor Notary with a good and transparent. It is recommended that the technical guidance on the advisory of the Notary shall be made of technical rules so that we will know how to accompany the notary. Furthermore, it is expected that the draft of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights Decree 2016 on the Implementation of Duties of the Notary Board of Honor Council shall be immediately ratified.Keywords Notary Public, Regional Supervisory Board, Honorary Council of Notary Area"

"ABSTRAKUU No. 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan atas UU No. 31 Tahun 1999tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi memberikan sebuah nuansa barudalam perkembangan penegakan hukum di bidang pemberantasan korupsi diIndonesia yaitu dengan dikenalnya pembalikan beban pembuktian terutamaberkaitan dengan pembuktian tindak pidana gratifikasi sebagaimana diatur dalamPasal 12 B ayat (1) huruf a. Permasalahannyamasih jarang ditemui perkara yangmenerapkan ketentuan tentang gratifikasi, padahal penggunaan pasal ini PenuntutUmum akan lebih diuntungkan karena kewajiban untuk membuktikan sudah adapada pihak terdakwa. Penelitian ini bermaksud untuk mengetahui bagaimanakonsekuensi dari pembalikan beban pembuktian pada perkara gratifikasi terhadapproses pembuktian di muka persidangan oleh Penuntut Umum, penerapannyadalam kasus Dhana Widiatmika dan Gayus Tambunan, dan hal-hal apakah yangmasih menjadi permasalahan dalam penerapannya. Hasil penelitian inimenunjukkan penerapan pembalikan beban pembuktian perkara Gratifikasi dalamPasal 12 B terdapat kerancuan, karenapasal ini memuat dua unsur pasal yangmasing-masing memiliki sistem pembuktian yang berbeda yaitu unsur “pemberiankepada Pegawai Negeri atau Penyelenggara Negara” (sistem pembuktiankonvensional) dan unsur “berhubungan dengan jabatannya dan yang berlawanandengan kewajiban atau tugasnya” (sistem pembuktian terbalik). Dimana dalamproses pembuktian Pasal 12 Btetap mengacu pada KUHAP, sehingga menjadikanpembuktian terbalik mekanismenya tidak terlihat dalam pemeriksaan dipersidangan, karena dengan tetap saja pola hakim digiring pada polapemikirannya Jaksa Penuntut Umum.

---

ABSTRACTAct No. 20 of 2001 on Amendments to Act No. 31 Year 1999 onEradication of Corruption gives a new nuance in the development of lawenforcement in the field of eradication of corruption in Indonesia, with thefamiliar reversal of the burden of proof is primarily concerned with proving thecrime of gratification as provided for in Article 12 B of paragraph (1) letter a. Theproblem is rarely encountered cases that apply the provisions of gratification,whereas the use of this article Prosecutor will be benefited from the existingobligation to prove the defendant. This study intends to find out how theconsequences of a reversal of the burden of proof on the graft case against theevidence in court by prosecution , its application in the case of Gayus Tambunanand Dhana Widiatmika, and if things are still a problem in its application. Theresults of this study demonstrate the applicability of the reversal of the burden ofproof in the case of Article 12 B Gratuities are ambiguous, because this articlecontains two elements, each chapter has a different system that is an element ofproof "gift to an official or state officials" (conventional verification system) andelement "associated with his position and contrary to the obligations orduties"(reverse authentication system). Where in the process of proving Article 12B still refer to the Criminal Code, making the reverse authentication mechanism isnot visible in the examination in the trial, because the judge still herded thepattern of his thinking pattern Prosecution."

"ABSTRAKKontrak konstruksi merupakan jenis kontrak yang dinamis. Kompleksitaspekerjaan dan keterlibatan berbagai kepentingan menjadikan kontrak konstruksimemiliki potensi sengketa di setiap tahapan konstruksi. Oleh karena itu, para pihakdalam kontrak konstruksi harus mencari metode penyelesaian sengketa memastikantidak terhambatnya kegiatan konstruksi. Dalam FIDIC General Conditions ofContract For Construction (1st Edition, 1999) dikenal mekanisme penyelesaiansengketa dalam bentuk Dispute Adjudication Board yang putusannya bersifatmengikat dan harus dijalankan terlebih dahulu oleh para pihak meskipun adakeberatan dari salah satu pihak. Dari sini terdapat dua permasalahan yang dijadikanobjek penelitian, Pertama, kedudukan Dispute Adjudication Board dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif PenyelesaianSengketa; Kedua, sifat putusan Dispute Adjudication Board yang harus dijalankanterlebih dahulu dibandingkan dengan putusan pengadilan yang bersifat serta mertaberdasarkan Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia dan pelaksanaannya berdasarkan sifatputusan yang diterapkan oleh beberapa lembaga adjudikasi di Indonesia. Penelitianini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif yang ditopang oleh analisa terhadapperaturan perundang-undangan dan doktrin hukum. Berdasarkan penelitian,ditemukan bahwa mekanisme Adjudikasi yang melandasi Dispute AdjudicationBoard belum diatur oleh UU Arbitrase. Meskipun demikian, terdapat beberapaperaturan sektoral yang mengatur serta beberapa institusi alternatif penyelesaiansengketa menjalankan adjudikasi. Terkait dengan putusan serta merta DisputeAdjudication Board dalam FIDIC General Conditions of Contract ForConstruction (1st Edition, 1999) dapat disimpulkan hal tersebut merupakankewajiban kontraktual yang ditetapkan para pihak diawal kontrak. Hal ini yangmembedakannya dengan putusan serta merta yang dianut dalam Hukum AcaraPerdata Indonesia di mana putusan serta merta tersebut merupakan kewenanganhakim untuk menilai dapat atau tidaknya suatu putusan dijalankan terlebih dahulu.Disamping itu, baik dalam peraturan sektoral yang telah mengatur adjudikasimaupun peraturan institusi alternatif penyelesaian sengketa dan arbitrase yangmemberikan layanan adjudikasi pada umumnya menentukan putusan adjudikasibersifat mengikat namun tidak selalu bersifat serta merta.

---

ABSTRACTConstruction contract is a dynamic contract. The complexity of the work and theinvolvement of many interests make a construction contract has potential disputesat every stages. Therefore, the parties to the construction contract should seek themethod of dispute resolution which can ensure that the dispute does not hamper theongoing work. The FIDIC General Conditions of Contract for Construction (1stEdition, 1999), recognized a mechanism of alternative dispute resolution by theform of Dispute Adjudication Board whose decision is binding and the parties shallgive promptly effect to it regardless any objections raised by one of the parties.From that point, there are two identified issues, as the object of this research, First,the position of Dispute Adjudication Board under The Law Number 30 of 1999Regarding Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Settlement; Second, comparison thenature of immediate binding effect decision between the the Dispute AdjudicationBoard's decision under The FIDIC General Conditions of Contract forConstruction (1st Edition, 1999) and court?s decision under the Civil ProcedureCode Indonesia. The comparison also considering the implementation ofadjudication?s decision by several adjudication institutions in Indonesia. The typeof research is legal reseach by analyzing the regulations and law doctrine relatedto the issues. The result of this research are, First, the underlying mechanism ofDispute Adjudication Board, has not been regulated and governed under theArbitration Act. Nonetheless, there are some sectoral rules which has govern theadjudication procedures and has also been conducted by several institutions ofalternative dispute resolution and arbitration in Indonesia as part of their services.Second, the immediate binding effect of Dispute Adjudication Board's decision canbe concluded as contractual obligations for the parties as set forth at the beginningof the contract. This is what distinguishes it from the immediate binding effect ofcourt?s decision as in the Civil Procedure Code Indonesia where the decision isunder the judges authority. Besides that, both in the sectoral regulations that havebeen set and/or institutional adjudication of alternative dispute resolution andarbitration rules, in general, determine that the adjudication decision is bindingbut does not necessarily have immediate binding effect"

"This paper aims to discuss problematizations of discretion issue in the Administration Law 2014. Discretion is one of some discussed issues in the Administration Law which provides a legal guidance for bureaucrats to conduct their jobs. Drawing on Bacchi's WPR (What is problem represented to be?] approach to policy analysis, this paper interrogates what 'problemfs]' is (are] produced in the policy document, what presuppositions are used as arguments to support the 'problems', what left as unproblematic issue that is absence in the policy problematizations, and what effects are produced by the 'problem' representation. The paper finds out that rules and procedures are the key concepts which assumed as policy 'problems' related to discretion issue. Neglecting the certain rules and procedures will be considered as doing illegal action. Only public managers have the discretionary power or managerial discretion, but in a limited room, because of upper manager's intervention. However, this discretion policy remains an inefficient and rigid process in facing certain situation because, in exercising discretion, they have to obey certain rules and procedures. In addition, staffs do not have discretionary authority within their jobs although they might also face some certain situation which needs to make decisions."

"Abstrak The passage Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration has raised its own problems due to its clauses regarding legal subjects that could be charged with reinstating state losses. This is due to the fact that such Law provides that government institutions can be determined as the party that is responsible for reinstating state loss that have occurred, which contradicts with the definition of state loss as stipulated in the applicable state finance laws that position the state as the party suffering the loss when a state loss is incurred. This research has been conducted using a normative legal research method which aims to test consistency between the legal norms applied in Law Number 30 of 2014 and the laws on state finance. Result of this research demonstrates that government institutions cannot be designated as the legal subject responsible for state losses. Such stipulation is not legally logical as it asserts that government institutions that are in fact representatives of the State may be required to return or pay the state losses to the state. Therefore there needs to be a revision to the relevant provisions of Law Number 30 of 2014 in order for such law to be in line with the provisions that presently govern state finance."

"Pada bidang energi dan sumberdaya alam terdapat sektor pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara merupakan energi yang tak dapat diperbaharui serta berasal dari bawah tanah, sehingga memerlukan perhatian dalam melakukan pengelelolaan. Dalam hal pengelolaan tersebut pemerintah pusat medistribusikan kewenangannya untuk melakukan pengelolaan pertambangan mineral dan batubara berdasarkan pada asas-asas otonomi daerah. Dengan didasari atas asas-asas otonomi daerah tersebut maka adanya pembagian atas urusan pemerintahan yang menjadi kewenangan antara Pemerintah Pusat, Pemerintah Provinsi dan Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota. Kewenangan Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten/Kota dalam pengelolaan sumberdaya alam mineral dan batubara berdasarkan pada UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 Tentang Mineral dan Batubara diberikan secara setelah berlakunya UU No. 23 Tahun 2014 Tentang Pemerintah Daerah.

---

In the field of energy and natural resources containing mineral and coal mining sector are the non-renewable energy and derived from underground, requiring attention in managing. In terms of the management of the central government authority distributed the management of mineral and coal based on the principles of local autonomy. Based on the principles of local autonomy discords by the top division of government affairs under the authority of the central government, provincial government and regency/district governments. The authority of regency/district government in natural resource management of mineral and coal base Law Number 4 Year 2009 in concern Mineral and Coal granted after the enactment of Law Number 23 Year 2014 on Regional Government."

"Pegawai negeri adalah setiap Warga Negara Republik Indonesia yang telah memenuhi syarat yang ditentukan, diangkat oleh pejabat yang berwenang dan diserahi tugas dalam suatu jabatan negeri,atau diserahi tugas negara lainnya, dan digaji berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Pegawai negeri yang dibahas dalam tulisan ini adalah pegawai negeri sipil pusat dan pegawai negeri sipil daerah. Disiplin pegawai negeri adalah kesanggupan pegawai negeri sipil untuk menaati kewajiban dan menghindari larangan yang di tentukan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dan/atau peraturan kedinasan yang apabila tidak dipatuhi akan dijatuhi hukuman disiplin. Peraturan tentang disiplin pegawai negeri dimulai dengan terbitnya Peraturan Pemerintah tahun 1950 dan pada tahun 1952 Peraturan Pemerintah ini dicabut dan digantikan dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Tahun 1952 tentang Hukuman Jabatan. Peraturan Pemerintah Tahun 1952 bertahan sampai akhir tahun 1980, dan pada Agustus tahun 1980, pemerintah menerbitkan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 30 Tahun 1980 Tentang Peraturan Disiplin Pegawai Negeri Sipil. Sejak kejatuhan Soeharto diakhir tahun 1998, muncul desakan untuk melakukan reformasi birokrasi. Reformasi birokrasi memiliki peran dalam lahirnya Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 53 Tahun 2010 tentang Disiplin Pegawai Negeri. Beberapa alasan pencabutan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 30 Tahun 1980, diantaranya adalah: dalam kurun waktu 29 (dua puluh sembilan) tahun telah banyak perubahan peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang kepegawaian, Tidak ada klasifikasi kewajiban dan larangan yang dikaitkan dengan jenis hukuman disiplin, sehingga tidak tampak adanya hubungan antara pelanggaran dan jenis hukuman, pengaturan mengenai ketidak hadiran masih terlalu longgar. Pada juni tahun 2010, lahirlah Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 53 tahun 2010 tentang Disiplin PNS, beberapa kelebihan dalam Peraturan Pemerintah ini adalah pengaturan tentang ketentuan masuk kerja yang lebih ketat, adanya klasifikasi yang jelas antara pelanggaran dengan sanksi hukuman disiplin yang diterima, adanya sanksi hukuman bagi pejabat yang tidak menjatuhkan hukuman disiplin, dan mengenal hitungan kumulatif untuk masalah ketidakhadiran. Dengan keberadaaan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 53 tahun 2010, diharapkan pegawai negeri sipil lebih bersungguh-sungguh dalam melaksanakan fungsi pelayanan kepada masyarakat.

---

Civil servants is every Republic of Indonesia citizens who have met specified requirement, appointed by authority official and assigned in a one of government position or another state duty, and be paid based on valid legislation regulation. Civil servants discussed in this final task are central and regional ones. Discipline of civil servants is an ability of civil servants to obey obligation and avoid prohibition which had been determined in legislation regulation and/or service regulation, disobedience will get discipline punishment. Regulation about discipline of civil servants began by publishing government regulation year 1950 and on 1952 it stopped and changed by government regulation year 1952 about function punishment. Government regulation year 1952 lasted up to end of 1980, and on August 1980 government established Government Regulation Year 1980 About Civil Servants Discipline Regulation. Since collapsing of Soeharto era by the end of 1980, it appeared enforcement to conduct bureaucracy reformation. Bureaucracy reformation has its role in establishing of Government Regulation No. 53 Year 2010 about Civil Servants Discipline. Some reasons of Government Regulation No 30 Year 1980 revocation, are: in 29 (twenty nine) years era had been many changes of legislation regulation in officialdom field, there were not classification of obligation and prohibition related to type of discipline of punishment, so there is not relationship between infraction and type of punishment, absence regulation were too slight. On June 2010, it appeared Government Regulation No 53 year 2010 about Discipline of Civil Servants, several superiors of it are regulation about work provision is stricter, clear classification between infraction and received discipline sanction, and has accumulative counting regards to absence. By the presence of Government Regulation No. 53 year 2010, it is expected that civil servants are more seriously in implementing their service function for public. "