The objective of this article is to establish whether the judges depend on relevant facts, judicial rules, and the law when making their judgments or they use extraneous factors such as what a judge eats, personal ideology, beliefs, or the cultural and political environment. The discourse between the two sides is incomplete without exploring the grand theories: formalism and realism. The antimony between the two theories resulted in theoretical analysis and empirical research. The realism challenged the existing logical reasoning and legal rules that judges use in making their judgment as they contend that judges applying rules and law in their decision-making process are irrational and mechanical. Formalism insists on using the judicial rules and the law in making decisions as opposed to extraneous factors, which realists contend should be the basis for decision making with laws and rules only to support the findings. The continental legal theory holds that legal realism is a hard-nosed, down-to-earth, and practical school of thought that is opposed to mechanical and scientific theories. The scholarly analysis of the judicial decision-making process brings into focus the conduct of judicial officers and whether they base their reasoning on extrajudicial issues. However, the discussion should avoid denigrating into an attack on the personality of judges as it undermines the rule of law.
The global pandemic of the Covid-19 outbreak has caused problems in various aspects of life. Several countries have invented or made the Covid-19 vaccine. However, there are still many countries that have not been able to find or make the Covid-19 vaccine, including ASEAN countries. This raises questions that are the topic of discussion in this article, namely about ASEAN's attitude towards 2 different interests between patent protection for the Covid-19 vaccine and humanitarian interests in overcoming the Covid-19 outbreak. Does Patent protection take priority or humanitarian interest take precedence? To discuss this topic, the authors use normative legal research methods based on secondary data or bibliography. The topic was discussed by comparing various legal provisions, both national and international, in order to obtain the main findings stating that patent protection also prioritizes humanitarian interests
Kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia adalah kekuasaan yang bebas dan merdeka. Pengadilan Pajak sebagai Pengadilan Khusus adalah pelaksana kekuasaan kehakiman, akan tetapi sampai saat ini masih berada di bawah dua atap, Mahkamah Agung dan Kementerian Keuangan. Hal tersebut tentu dapat mempengaruhi kebebasan Hakim dalam memeriksa dan memutus Sengketa Pajak. Hal ini perlu diteliti tentang kedudukan Pengadilan Pajak dalam sistem kekuasaan kehakiman di Indonesia dan reposisi atas kedudukan tersebut. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan jenis penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan teori kepastian hukum dan teori pemisahan kekuasaan. Hasil penelitian ini medapati bahwa Pengadilan Pajak seharusnya berada di bawah satu atap, yaitu di bawah Mahkamah Agung, hal mana mengacu pada ketentuan Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung dan Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, sehingga sejalan dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi atas Judicial Review Undang-Undang Pengadilan Pajak, maka Pengadilan Pajak harus direposisi dan ditempatkan berada di lingkungan peradilan tata usaha negara.
The bank's activity as an intermediary is to collect and distribute funds in the form of credit. Creditors in providing credit to debtors adhere to the principle of prudence, because creditors are faced with credit risk. For this reason, banks in providing credit to debtors have several conditions that must be met, including the existence of guarantees, both material (material) and immaterial (individual) guarantees. One form of individual guarantee is a guarantor (borghtoct), which is found in the case of the Supreme Court's Decision on Bankruptcy and PKPU. The research method used is normative research with a statutory approach. The results of the study found that the petitioned bankruptcy case was rejected or at least declared unacceptable because the PKPU applicant did not have legal standing because the facility agreement underlying the debt was legally invalid and therefore null and void, as well as the company guarantee deed as well as the legal limit.
In the digital era, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the demands of parents' roles and responsibilities towards children, especially to build relationships and communicate with children, are very important and relevant. Digitization in all aspects of life after the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way people's lives in general are "forced" to enter and live in the digital world. Stand on this, the law exists to give meaning to family life, in the form of parental responsibility and children’s respect for parents, even in the digital era.
Justice Collaborators are suspects, defendants, convicts who cooperate with law enforcement to reveal a certain criminal offense. In narcotics crime Justice Collaborators are used as a tool in uncovering, fighting, organized cases. Justice Collaborator is an extraordinary crime (Extra Ordinary Crime), where the perpetrator needs protection. The formulation of the problem in this study is how the protection, rights and obligations of Justice Collaborators and the analysis of the application of Justice Collaborators in Case Study of Criminal Case Decision Number: 1273/PID.SUS/2019/PN.Plg. This research uses a study with qualitative normative juridical methods, which is research obtained from secondary sources. This research is an analysis that analyzes the protection system, rights, and obligations as a Justice Collaborator by using secondary data, namely Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 04 of 2011 concerning Treatment of Criminal Reporters and Cooperating Perpetrators, and also using other secondary legal materials such as books, journals, and the internet. From the results of this study, it can be concluded that Justice Collaborators are defendants whose interests and protection rights must be applied as perpetrators who reveal an organized crime
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah guna menyediakan pemahaman mengenai sengketa pertanahan berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Artikel ini menerapkan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Secara lebih lanjut, para penulis menyediakan pembahasan dari artikel ini dengan menyatakan bahwa terdapat dua jenis forum penyelesaian sengketa pertanahan. Forum yang pertama dikenal sebagai forum non-adjudikasi yang terdiri dari mediasi, konsiliasi, konsultasi, dan fasilitasi. Sedangkan, forum yang kedua terbagi menjadi dua sub-klasifikasi yaitu adjudikasi dan non-adjudikasi. Metode adjudikasi tersebut terdiri dari penyelesaian sengketa melalui pengadilan negeri terhadap sengketa kepemilikan tanah, dan penyelesaian sengketa melalui pengadilan tata usahanegeri mengenai keabsahan sertifikat tanah. Selain itu, sub-klasifikasi kedua dari metode adjudikasi ini dilakukan melalui penyelesaian sengketa melalui forum arbitrase yang dapat diterapkan terhadap perjanjian arbitrase dengan objek berupa tanah.
Pandemi Covid-19 di seluruh dunia menyibukkan seluruh negara di dunia dengan berbagai strategi menanggulangi dan atau meminimalisir penyebaran virus Covid-19. Indonesia menggalakkan Vaksinasi Covid-19 bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia sebagai tanggungjawab negara melindungi dan menjamin pelayanan kesehatan warganya. Pro dan Kontra terhadap Vaksinasi Covid-19 menjadi tantangan tersendiri bagi negara dalam melaksanakan kewajibannya. Vaksinasi Covid-19 adalah tanggungjawab negara sekaligus pemenuhan hak asasi masyarakat akan pelayanan dan jaminan kesehatan, sehingga pelaksanaan vaksinasi Covid-19 diwajibkan oleh negara kepada seluruh warga negara guna melindungi kesehatan masyarakat yang lebih menyeluruh.
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.