Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini dilatar belakangi oleh adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XV/2018 terhadap Kelembagaan Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, serta urgensi keanggotaan DPD RI yang berasal dari unsur partai politik akibat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XV/2018. Metode yang digunakan kualitatif dengan pendekatan Yuridis Normatif. Temuan pada penelitian ini adalah: Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusannya menegaskan bahwa frasa "pekerjaan lain" dalam Pasal 182 huruf i UU Pemilu bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat secara bersyarat sepanjang tidak dimaknai mencakup pula pengurus partai politik (parpol). Putusan MK tersebut berdampak pada larangan pencalonan anggota DPD dari unsur pengurus parpol. DPD tidak dapat diisi oleh pengurus parpol, "Pengurus parpol" struktur organisasi parpol yang bersangkutan. MK mengakui bahwa Pasal 182 huruf i UU Pemilu memang tidak secara tegas melarang pengurus parpol mencalonkan diri menjadi calon anggota DPD. Sikap MK berdasarkan putusan-putusan sebelumnya selalu menegaskan bahwa calon anggota DPD tidak boleh berasal dari anggota parpol. Sehingga, secara otomatis pasal tersebut bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 apabila tidak dimaknai melarang pengurus parpol mencalonkan diri menjadi anggota DPD. Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kewenangan untuk melakukan pengujian undang-undang terhadap konstitusi, memutus sengketa lembaga negara, memutus pembubaran partai politik, dan memutus perselisihan hasil pemilihan umum pada tingkat pertama dan terakhir. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final artinya mencakup juga kekuatan mengikat (binding). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kekuatan mengikat, kekuatan pembuktian, dan kekuatan eksekutorial. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 pada pelaksanaannya telah terjadi problematika mengenai berlakunya putusan tersebut yang dianggap berlaku surut. Mahkamah Agung yang membatalkan PKPU Nomor 26 Tahun 2018 karena berpendapat bahwa Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 berlaku surut. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU- XVI/2018 tetap harus dilaksanakan, sehingga timbul ketidakpastian hukum. Mahkamah Agung dinilai telah mengabaikan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dalam kasus pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018, penafsiran dari Mahkamah Konstitusi yang harus dijadikan pedoman dan dilaksanakan.

---

The background of this research is the existence of the Constitutional Court decision Number 30/PUU-XV/2018 against the Institution of the Regional Representatives Council, as well as the urgency of DPD RI membership originating from political parties as a result of the Constitutional Court decision Number 30/PUU-XV/2018. The method used in this study is to use a qualitative method with a normative juridical approach. The findings of this study are: The Constitutional Court in its decision emphasized that the phrase "other work" in Article 182 letter i of the Election Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have conditionally binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted to include administrators of political parties (political parties). The Constitutional Court's decision had an impact on the ban on the candidacy of DPD members from elements of political party management. So, the DPD cannot be filled by political party officials. The "administrators of political parties" in this decision are administrators starting from the central level to the lowest level according to the organizational structure of the political party concerned. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that Article 182 letter i of the Election Law does not explicitly prohibit political party officials from nominating themselves as candidates for DPD members. Even though the Constitutional Court's stance based on previous decisions always emphasized that candidates for DPD members could not come from members of political parties. Thus, this article automatically contradicts the 1945 Constitution if it is not interpreted as prohibiting political party officials from nominating themselves to become members of the DPD. The Constitutional Court has the authority to review laws against the constitution, decide on disputes over state institutions, decide on the dissolution of political parties, and decide on disputes over the results of general elections at the first and last levels. The decision of the Constitutional Court is final, meaning that it includes binding powers. Decisions of the Constitutional Court have binding power, evidentiary power, and executorial power. In its implementation, there have been problems regarding the validity of the decision which is considered retroactive. The Supreme Court canceled PKPU Number 26 of 2018 because it was of the opinion that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 was retroactive. However, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 must still be implemented, resulting in legal uncertainty. The Supreme Court is considered to have ignored the decision of the Constitutional Court. In the case of the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018, it is the interpretation of the Constitutional Court that must be used as a guideline and implemented."

"The General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) is one of the company?s organs with the significant role of determining the business course and other issues related to corporate actions; as it is granted by law to the shareholders of the company. Any decision can be made in the GMS; such as determining the shareholders? unanimous concurrence on the proposed meeting agenda or even if the results of the meeting are actually contrary to such agenda caused by dissenting among themselves. However, the GMS can also pose certain obstacles in situations where one or more shareholders (that appear to be a majority shareholder) fail to act in good faith or have an internal dispute with other shareholder(s) in the company. The shareholder concerned can use such majority position to cause a dead-lock in the GMS, as a result of which the rest of the shareholder(s) are unable to make any decisions concerning the proposed GMS agenda. The aim of this article is to look at the effectiveness of Article 86 of the Indonesian Company Law for the purpose of overcoming the above described situation. The said Article 86 was formulated without considering the possibility of shareholder intentionally undertaking such unlawful measures. Moreover, the article is aimed at observing the concordance between the Indonesian Company Law and the Indonesian Procedural Law."

"Since eradicating corruption having been continously encouraged by late governments ? and until now ? , there would not be less important as to retracting the corrupted assets. There are many aspects to be considered in doing such action, such as manifesting the legal aspects of administrative law, and so other applied national regulations. By these regulations, such as Law No. 7 of 2006 on Ratification of United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2003 (Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa Anti-Korupsi, 2003), Law Number 25 of 2003 On Amendment to Law Number 15 of 2002 on Money Laundering, Act 30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission, Law Number 20 Year 2001 regarding Amendment to Law Number 31 Year 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, and Government Regulation Number 65 of 1999 on Implementation Procedures for Examination of State Property, retraction the corrupted assets should be define in order to get known about eradicating corruption. Another issue that urgently to be defined, as it also become main subject of retracting assets, is the asset itself. Indeed, as the asset which become mainly discussed about is State assets. So, it would be very necessary to clearly have a distinction between State responsibility and that of irresponsibility of the State, in order to settle down, as an after effect, many interpretations."

"Decentralisation system in Indonesia was introduced after the fall of the former President Soehartowith the objective of ensuring good governance and equitable development across all regions inthe country. Unfortunately, the implementation of desentralisasi has been complicated. Somescholars have suggested that the model was flawed as it did not consider Indonesia’s context of lessdeveloped administrative institutions in the regions. Not only did desentralisasi cause headachesfor the government, it also created confusion for foreign investors. Consequently, it affects theinvestment climate in the country and undermines the perception of Indonesia as an attractiveplace to invest in. In certain cases, desentralisasi has also led to claims by foreign investors forinvestor-State arbitration under Indonesia’s international investment agreements (IIAs). Thispaper analyses the problems of desentralisasi in Indonesia, its effects to foreign investors andsuggests ways to alleviate the problems by modifying and using Indonesia’s IIAs effectively.Setelah jatuhnya rezim Soeharto, sistem pemerintahan desentralisasi mulai diterapkan diIndonesia dengan tujuan untuk memastikan tata kelola yang baik dan pembangunan yangadil di seluruh wilayah Republik Indonesia. Sayangnya, penerapan desentralisasi sangatlahsulit. Beberapa akademisi mengatakan bahwa model sistem desentralisasi yang diterapkan diIndonesia tidak sesuai dengan situasi di lapangan di Indonesia, khususnya di daerah-daerahyang belum mempunyai kantor-kantor administratif yang berfungsi dengan baik. Desentralisasimenimbulkan berbagai masalah bagi pemerintah dan membingungkan para investor asing.Akibatnya, desentralisasi memperburuk iklim investasi di Indonesia dan menimbulkan persepsinegatif mengenai Indonesia sebagai tempat berinvestasi. Dalam beberapa kasus tertentu,desentralisasi juga menyebabkan munculnya tuntutan-tuntutan oleh para investor asing diarbitrase antara investor dan Pemerintah berdasarkan perjanjian investasi internasional (PII)Indonesia. Makalah ini menganalisa masalah-masalah yang ditimbulkan oleh desentralisasi diIndonesia, efek-efeknya bagi para investor asing dan memberikan saran mengenai cara-carauntuk menangani beberapa masalah tersebut dengan mengubah dan menggunakan PII Indonesiasecara efektif."

"Fiduciary Guarantee (Fiduciary Law) which approved by the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI) on September 9, 1999 has accommodate the public needs to help business activities and to provide legal certainty to the interested parties. With the increase in the development activities and the needs for funding, a majority of funds are needed to meet the lending and borrowing activities that require protection for the lender and the borrower through a guarantee institution that can provide legal certainty and protection to the lender or the borrower. Viewed from the current lending practices, there is a difficulty on the part of the Fiduciary Guarantee to conduct the fiduciary execution if the Fiduciary Grantor defaults since in fact the goods being a fiduciary object are still in the possession of the Fiduciary Grantor or Debtor, then in line with the provisions of article 1977 of the Indonesian Civil Code, known as the principle of bezit geldt als volkomen titel."