There are still many attempts to silence freedom of expression in Indonesia. One of the ways to silence the freedom of expression in Indonesia is Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP). This study analyzed at least three SLAPP cases in Indonesia: (1) the case of Prita Mulyasari vs. the Omni International Alam Sutera Hospital in Tangerang; (2) the case of Budi Heryawan as known as Budi Pego; and (3) the case of Nur Alam vs. Basuki Wasis. This study proposed two questions. First, what is the pattern and portrait of SLAPP in Indonesia? Second, how is the analysis of human rights law on the use of SLAPP in Indonesia? This normative legal research is a case-based research. It uses the case, conceptual, and statutory approaches with qualitative data. The study concludes that SLAPP in Indonesia is used against people who fight for their rights, who defend their selves against human rights abuses committed by third parties, and to experts whose testimonies are used by a court. The representation shows that SLAPP is an effort to shift the problem from the real perpetrator to the victim. The SLAPP puts the victim in a high-risk position; drains and distracts the victim; and postpones problem-solving. Second, the SLAPP is an act that contradicts and/or has an adverse impact on freedom of expression. Courts must be present to affirm that the state takes sides to protect freedom of expression.
<div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><p class="AbstractText">This study focuses on using religious attributes in the trial process of corruption cases in Indonesia, the judge’s consideration of the decency of a defendant, and the regulation of a defendant’s religious identity in the court decision. By identifying the judge’s perspective on a defendant's religious attributes and aspects of decency as an interpretative scheme and constructing their significance on it, this study also presents an analysis of the application of the principle of impartiality of judges and courts based on the Bangalore Principles. Impartiality itself is positioned as the bedrock of judicial integrity. With a field-based research method, this study reveals that religious identity has influenced judges and court decisions, especially considering mitigating factors in criminal sentencing. These findings indicate that the Bangalore Principles fall short of clear guidelines to counter such bias and a clear framework in Indonesia’s judiciary to restore its integrity.</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
The Indonesian Competition Supervisory Commission (ICSC) has the authority to investigate, prosecute, adjudicate, decide, and impose sanctions on business actors for violating Indonesian competition law. It also has the authority to establish procedural laws for the competition law enforcement procedures within its institution. This single role raises various issues in the current context, including the right to a fair trial and checks and balances. This article seeks to define the position of human rights, particularly the right to a fair trial, in competition law enforcement procedures. The result is that competition law enforcement procedures are subordinate to human rights, so they must be exercised in compliance with human rights standards, particularly the right to a fair trial. Based on the experience in Indonesia, this study finds that the ICSC’s single role is incompatible with human rights commitments in fair competition law enforcement procedures. As an alternative solution, this article encourages a modification and adjustment based on human rights commitments and checks and balances mechanism by limiting one of the ICSC’s authorities and broadening the interference of the Supreme Court in enforcing Indonesian competition law at the ICSC level.
This article is written on two objects of study. First, what are the conceptual, normative, and institutional problems in the supervision of the incumbent's premature campaign in a Local Election? Second, how is the idea of an integrated design to supervise the premature campaign of the incumbent? This normative research is conducted using a case, conceptual, and statutory approach. The finding of this study is that the premature campaign has not been strictly regulated by the Election Law. The absence of a strict regulation means that the incumbent's premature campaign can be interpreted using various regulations so that the ambiguity of the supervisory institution existed in this case. Therefore, integrated supervision is offered. Integrated supervision in this context provides a formal coordination forum among supervisory agencies, consisting of representatives from the supervision of the ethical regime, government, public services, law enforcement, with the Bawaslu as the coordinator.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.