During the pandemic, the Indonesian government implemented policies to protect citizens from the virus. One such policy mandated the use of the PeduliLindungi application for passengers traveling domestically or internationally by land, sea, or air. The application helps monitor and track the virus's spread, and provides vaccination information. This study examines the government's policies on PeduliLindungi's use and how the existing legal culture relates to vaccination and quarantine within the app. The research methodology employed a doctrinal approach, analyzing laws, concepts, interpretations, and cases. The study found that the PeduliLindungi application is mandatory for all travelers. It allows passengers to access their vaccination status and determines the required quarantine duration. Violating quarantine orders can result in imprisonment and fines, as per Judge Decision No. 21/Pid.S/2021/PN.Tng. However, limited smartphone ownership restricts public access to the app. Therefore, the government must formulate policies that accommodate individuals without smartphones, ensuring their safety while traveling. Public legal awareness and understanding of the PeduliLindungi app's importance are crucial for protecting public health. Strengthening the legal culture is necessary to promote compliance with health guidelines and informed decision-making. By fostering a robust legal culture, individuals will prioritize health measures, safeguarding their well-being and that of the community.
The crime of genocide is one of the most serious international crimes stipulated in the Rome Statute. Previously, genocide was regulated in the Convention on Genocide entered into force on 12 January 1951. The convention and the Rome Statute do not allow retroactivity. However, retroactivity appears in the Indonesian Law on the Human Rights Court and is strengthened through the Indonesian Constitutional Court's Decision. This study focuses on the neglect of the non-retroactive principle in the Law on Human Rights Courts and the extent to which the retroactive period. This research uses normative-legal method with a statutory and case approaches. The result shows that ignoring the non-retoactive principle is contrary to international law and international human rights regulations. Hence, the Constitutional Court's decision that strengthens retroactivity can be interpreted that the Court maintains human rights while at the same time violates human rights by not accurately interpreting the word “derogation” and “restriction” in Article 28J of the 1945 Constitution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.