Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Rumah Sakit merupakan Rumah Sakit X sebagai salah satu institusi pelayanan masyarakat yang tidak terlepas dengan kemungkinan terjadinya kasus kebakaran, gempa bumi, kecelakaan, maupun malapetaka lainnya. Data dari BMKG pada bulan Oktober 2011, gempa terjadi di Bali ada sekitar 3 rumah sakit yang rusak namun tidak ada korban jiwa dalam gempa tersebut. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kesiapan dalam menghadapi keadaan darurat gempa. Berdasarkan hasil pengumpulan data dan pengolahan data, baik data primer maupun data sekunder, diketahui bahwa Rumah Sakit X belum sepenuhnya memiliki kesiapan dalam menghadapi keadaan darurat gempa bumi.

---

Hospital is a Hospital X as one of public service institutions that can not be separated with the possibility of a case of fire, earthquake, accident, or other catastrophe. Data from BMKG in October 2011, an earthquake occurred in Bali there are about three hospitals damaged but no casualties in the quake. This study aims to determine the state of emergency preparedness in the face of the earthquake. Based on data collection and processing of data, both primary data and secondary data, it is known that X has not been fully Hospital has an emergency preparedness in dealing with earthquakes.

Abstrak :
The spread of COVID-19 brings holistic and tough impacts to legal institutions. As the Roman proverb goes, necessity knows no law. This public health hazard has quickly developed into a state of emergency and an exception which must be admitted when discussing legal order, due to the disease’s strikingly rapid transmission and high fatality rate. To handle the lingering state of emergency caused by the pandemic in 2020, many states have either set up or altered their legal and procedural supervision mechanisms. This paper firstly examines the theoretical origins, developments, transformations and practices of the legal infrastructures with regard to state of emergency in the US and Taiwan. Based on such background, we further analyze the emergent preventive measures for COVID-19 in the two states, testing if their emergency legal systems are able to curb the pandemic while abiding by their constitutional principles. Our research shows that compared with Taiwan’s disease control model, the US federalism equips the federal and state governments with better legal frameworks to establish emergency safety nets. Despite this, the Trump administration failed to timely invoke the constitution-assigned presidential emergency order, engendering policy swings and incoordination between the federal and state authorities. The lack of coherence in the US leadership eventually led to the failure of the country’s pandemic governance. On the other hand, our comparative study indicates that in both nations’ approaches to inhibit COVID-19, the Presidential emergency power (decree) embedded in the Constitutions is replaced by the emergency legislation. The lawmaking-dependent inclination marked by the integration of laws for managing disasters and threats to public health not only highlights the decline of presidential emergency powers granted by constitutional laws, but also brings profound challenges to judicial review which aims to ensure human rights.

Abstrak :
Konflik di Papua telah berlangsung berpuluh-puluh tahun, bahkan sejak masih dikenal dengan nama Irian Jaya. Sejarah panjang proses integrasi Papua yang bermasalah telah melahirkan konflik yang hingga kini tidak kunjung mencapai kata selesai. Dalam perkembangannya, kini ancaman tidak hanya datang dari kelompok bersenjata yang menginginkan kemerdekaan Papua. Studi terbaru juga menunjukkan besarnya potensi konflik, baik di antara orang Papua itu sendiri, maupun antara orang Papua dengan penduduk pendatang. Untuk menangani situasi di Papua, pemerintah telah melakukan tindakan-tindakan yang patut diduga membatasi Hak Asasi Manusia, seperti pengerahan aparat bersenjata dan pembatasan akses terhadap informasi dan media. Pada masa orde baru, secara faktual Papua bahkan pernah menjadi Daerah Operasi Militer. Uniknya, terlepas adanya indikasi kedaruratan yang nyata, pemerintah tidak pernah mendeklarasikan keadaan darurat secara resmi berdasar hukum. Padahal, menurut doktrin Hukum Tata Negara Darurat, tindakan-tindakan khusus yang membatasi Hak Asasi Manusia tersebut hanya dapat dilakukan dalam suatu keadaan darurat yang dideklarasikan secara resmi. Melalui studi pustaka, penelitian ini berusaha menelusuri norma pembatasan hak asasi manusia dalam keadaan darurat, baik dalam teori, hukum positif di Indonesia, dan pengaturannya dalam konstitusi negara-negara lain. Uraian-uraian menyangkut konflik yang terjadi di Papua juga disajikan untuk menambah pemahaman terhadap persoalan yang ada. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa penggunaan tindakan-tindakan khusus yang dilakukan dalam penanganan konflik di Papua telah bertentangan dengan asas proklamasi yang dikenal dalam Hukum Tata Negara Darurat. Selain itu, kasus-kasus pembunuhan di luar proses hukum dan penyiksaan juga menunjukkan pelanggaran serius terhadap non-derogable rights yang dijamin Pasal 28I Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 dan Pasal 4 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Lebih-lebih lagi, ketiadaan pengawasan oleh parlemen dan pengadilan menyebabkan tidak terdeteksinya tindakan-tindakan lain yang patut diduga tidak beralasan dan tidak proporsional terhadap ancaman bahaya yang ada. ......The conflict in Papua has been ongoing for decades, dating back to when it was known as Irian Jaya. The troubled integration process has led to a conflict that remains unresolved. Recently, studies have shown that threats come not only from armed groups seeking Papuan independence. Recent studies also show the potential conflicts, both between Papuans themselves, and within the Papuan community and between Papuans and the migrant population. The government's efforts to handle the situation, including the deployment of armed forces and restrictions on information access and the media, have raised concerns about human rights restrictions. Despite indications of an emergency, the government has never officially declared a state of emergency based on law, as required by the Emergency Constitutional Law doctrine. This study aims to explore how human rights restrictions during state of emergency in theory, Indonesian law, and in the constitutions of other countries. In addition, it presents descriptions of conflict in Papua to shed light on existing problems. The research reveals that the special measures used to manage the conflict in Papua conflict with the proclamation principle outlined in the Emergency Constitutional Law doctrine. Furthermore, cases of extrajudicial killings and torture demonstrate serious violations of the non-derograble rights guaranteed by the Article 28I of Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The absence of oversight by parliament and the courts has led to the failure to detect other actions alleged to be unreasonable and disproportionate to the gravity of the events.