Search

Printing companies play a central role in the exercise of general elections. However, there have been some issues in the number of printed ballot papers not relevant to the quantity requested by the General Election Commission, and this situation is considered election crime. Article 529 of Election Law implies that the printing company concerned may be subject to imprisonment or fines, but the legislation declares that a jail sentence cannot be imposed on the company. Departing from this issue, this research aims to analyze and find the ratio legis of criminalization of a printing company responsible for producing ballot papers for general elections. With a normative method and statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches, the research discovers that a lack of inaccuracy of drafters in the making of an academic draft on elections, where the drafters ruled out the notions of experts of criminal law and Supreme Court as delivered in a legislation-making session, seemingly gives Article 529 impunity. That is, the criminal sanction that should be imposed on a printing company following ballot paper manufacturing issues governed in Article 529 of Election Law does not guarantee any legal certainty and democratic general elections with integrity. The sanctions imposed on the company concerned should only be restricted to administrative measures like fines and no incarceration should be involved.

In Indonesia, the system of outsourcing work is not a recent development. Contract labor has really been used in numerous plantations on the islands of Java and Sumatra since the Dutch colonial era to execute this system. When the New Order administration was in power, outsourcing was implemented by offering rewards for making it easier for businesses operating in unionized areas to obtain business licenses (export processing zones). Many nations have long used a variety of models to practice the working relationship with outsourcing. In contrast, it is practically quite similar to Indonesia's employment relationship practice of the charter. Unquestionably, this kind of work practice is now required. Singapore is a developed nation in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, with effective labor laws. Singapore's judicial system treats its residents with a decent amount of impartiality and fairness. The Singapore Employment Act, the Immigration Act, and the Labor Guidelines are only a few of the laws that regulate foreign employees in all ways. Only the Philippines and Indonesia in Asia have severe limitations on the use of contracting and outsourcing. The research's methodology is normative juridical, with the philosophical, comparative, and historical manner of approaching law. In order to execute outsourcing procedures without causing controversy, especially if it is harmful to workers/labor, there are a number of conditions that must be met. This is true for both Singapore and Indonesia. Improving the quality of the workforce, tough law enforcement against infractions, ensuring easy access to the labor market, and providing social protection mechanisms for workers/laborers who are not absorbed in the labor market must all be done in conjunction with the practice of outsourcing. Additionally, it's crucial to consider the bargaining position between groups of companies and labor unions, especially when negotiations take place at the corporate level.

Legal protection of the rights of outsourced workers is not just a legal issue, but a right that must be obtained by workers according to the mandate in the legislation, these rights are in the form of work and decent wages, social security, severance pay, and work safety. Although some of the rights have been listed in the labor regulations, these regulations have not yet fully contained and regulated the fulfillment of workers' rights, especially in practice that has not fully protected the rights of outsourced workers in a just and constitutional manner. This research uses a normative juridical method with a statutory, conceptual, historical approach, with primary legal materials namely the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower jo. Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021 and ILO conventions. The results of the study indicate that the violation of the rights of outsourced workers is in fact still ongoing by providing substandard wages and unilateral layoffs by employers. Internationally, the ILO conventions have regulated the application of the protection of basic workers' rights, namely the abolition of forced labor and the provision of decent wages, this convention has also been ratified in Indonesian laws and regulations, thus various labor regulations should be a preventive measure as an optimization legal protection for workers so that the welfare of workers nationally and internationally can be achieved.

In this study, the authors raised this issue against the background of the existence of an incomplete norm vertically and horizontally in the agrarian law system, especially regarding legal protection for former building use rights holders whose validity period has ended. Vertically, it can be seen in the absence of the Basic Agrarian Law in the consideration of Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021 and only including the Law on Job Creation which has the potential to result in non-compliance with the provisions in the articles of Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021 with the provisions of the Basic Agrarian Law as the juridical basis for the regulation of agrarian law that is still valid in Indonesia. In addition, horizontally, what can be seen is the provisions of Article 102 and Article 103 of Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021 which contradict the implementation of Government Regulation Number 40 of 1996. Based on this explanation, the focus of this research examines how adequate legal arrangements are to be able to provide certainty, justice and legal benefits for the holder of the certificate of Building Use Rights on the Land of Management Rights. This research is a normative legal research using a statutory approach, the data used are primary data and secondary data which are analyzed using quantitative analysis. The results of the research are that adequate legal arrangements to be able to provide certainty, justice and legal benefits for holders of Building Use Rights certificates need to be developed within the framework of the presence of the Basic Agrarian Law, the Job Creation Law and their derivatives which regulate land as part of the state's vision to guarantee general welfare including through increased investment opportunities. The concept of an operational regulation can be seen in the provisions relating to the extension of the validity period in which the Right to Build on the Right of Management, after the land is used and/or utilized in accordance with the purpose of granting the right, may be granted an extension and renewal of rights as regulated in article 129 paragraph (3) Job Creation Act.

Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law no. 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury, states firmly that the Treasurer and other officials who have been appointed to compensate the state/regional losses in settlements with the dimensions of State Administrative Law may still be subject to administrative sanctions and/or criminal sanctions. And if the treasurer and other officials are processed under criminal law, the criminal decision does not relieve the claim for compensation that has been determined through a settlement with the dimensions of State Administrative Law. The regulation of such norms certainly raises legal issues, namely the implications for the Treasurer and Other Officials who have been determined by the Regional Compensation Claim. In the author's view, the treasurer and other officials when this article is applied will create double sanctions, sanctions for compensation claims (internal settlement), administrative sanctions and criminal sanctions.

Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury states firmly that the treasurer and other officials who have been appointed to compensate the state/regional losses in settlements with the dimensions of State Administrative Law may still be subject to administrative sanctions and/or criminal sanctions. And suppose the treasurer and other officials are processed under criminal law. In that case, the criminal decision does not relieve the claim for compensation that has been determined through a settlement with the dimensions of State Administrative Law. The regulation of such norms certainly raises legal issues, which have implications for the Treasurer and Other Officials whose demands for regional compensation have been determined, namely creating double sanctions, both sanctions for compensation claims (internal settlement), administrative sanctions (dismissed with respect) and criminal sanctions (jail, fines, and compensation). To overcome these legal problems, an alternative model for regulating regional compensation claims is needed in Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2004 against the Treasurer and Other Officials with justice and legal certainty in the future (ius constituendum).

Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia states that the State of Indonesia is a state of law. The consequence of this article is that law is placed in the highest position in the context of state administration in the Indonesian State. In the administration of the State, the law is formed into a constitution, which is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The protection and fulfillment of human rights and the rights of citizens are at the core of the conception of the rule of law. Therefore, all legal norms that form the basis of state administration must be oriented to the protection and fulfillment of human rights and the rights of citizens. One type of land right that should be highlighted from a normative legal perspective is the Building Use Right, as stated in Article 16 paragraph (1) letter c of the Basic Agrarian Law. In particular, the Right to Build is regulated in Article 35 to Article 40 of the Basic Agrarian Law. Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Basic Agrarian Law provides the meaning of Building Use Rights, namely the right to construct and own buildings on land that is not one's own, with a maximum of 30 years. Building rights comes from land that is not their own. Land that is not owned by itself is land originating from State land, land with management rights, and land with property rights. Building rights are valid for a certain period, can be extended and renewed rights. Associated with the values of Pancasila as the philosophical foundation of law in Indonesia from what is contained in the elaboration of the contradictions above, the existence of the second principle of Pancasila, just and civilized humanity, land rights are part of human rights. So the concept of humanity is a complete human being with all its dimensions including land rights which are clearly multidimensional in nature so that which must still be considered in the state regulatory system. The existence of land gives economic, political, and cultural honor/identity/self-respect functions. Therefore, the availability of a building use rights regulatory system, especially one that provides legal protection for former building use rights holders, is a manifestation of respect for human rights and humanity. Then the existence of the Fifth Precepts of Pancasila, Social Justice for All Indonesian People. This precept is the main goal or mission of living as an Indonesian state and the highest goal or crown of the legal system in a democratic country. The concept of social justice in the fifth principle of Pancasila includes justice in all its aspects and covers all human dimensions as multidimensional beings. In its preamble, the Constitution (the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia) emphasizes the State's obligation to "... to realize a social justice for all the people of Indonesia." Therefore, Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia provides a legal basis as well as a philosophical and even ideological basis that the earth and water and the natural resources contained therein, the authority to regulate land is entirely left to the State as an organization of power and used for the greatest prosperity of the people. With this, the most basic legal problem is in the form of a philosophical basis for legal arrangements to provide legal certainty for holders of Building Use Rights certificates on Management Rights land. In the results of this study, the legal regulation of Building Use Rights in the context of the land law system in Indonesia also develops in the discourse of individualistic vs collectivistic values and the challenges of these developments. Reflecting on the philosophy of living together, namely Pancasila, especially the Second and Fifth Precepts, it can be seen that philosophically, the legal regulation of Building Use Rights in Indonesia is based on collective values that accept the presence of social, cultural, and economic functions from land in this country. Just and civilized humanity and social justice for all Indonesian people are the philosophical foundations for regulating Land Rights, including Building Use Rights.

Research on the Parate of Mortgage Execution by Creditors as an Unlawful Actions, departs from the issues discussed, namely what is the legislative ratio of the Minister of Finance Regulation Number: 27 / PMK.06 / 2016 dated February 22, 2016 regarding instructions for auction implementation, appointing the seller as the authorized party to determine the limit value of the auction price of collateral at the parate auction for the execution of mortgage rights and is the parate for execution of mortgage rights by the seller categorized as an illegal act? The purpose of this research is to analyze and find the legislative ratio of the Minister of Finance Regulation Number: 27 / PMK.06 / 2016 dated February 22, 2016 regarding auction implementation instructions, appointing the seller as the authority to determine the limit value for the auction price of collateral at the parate auction for the execution of mortgage rights. , and parate execution of mortgage rights by the seller is categorized as an act against the law. The research method uses normative legal research, with a statutory approach (statute approach) and a case approach (case approach). The sources of legal materials used consisted of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials, while the analysis of legal materials was carried out in a descriptive qualitative manner. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the seller's legis ratio is the authorized party to set the auction price limit for guaranteed guarantee goods based on the provisions of Article 1 number 28 of the Minister of Finance Regulation No.27 / PMK.06 / 2016 dated February 22, 2016 regarding auction implementation instructions which determines that the minimum price of the goods to be auctioned is determined by the seller, in this case the security right holder. This refers to Article 6 of the UUHT where the first Mortgage holder has the right to sell the object of the Mortgage on his own power through a public auction and to collect his receivables from the sale proceeds. In determining the limit value which is determined based on the results of the appraiser's assessment, where the auction limit value must be at the lowest level in accordance with the liquidation value so that the auction office has the authority to reject the auction application submitted by the seller, if it does not comply with the standards stipulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Finance. No.27 / PMK.06 / 2016, then categorized as an act against the law.

This article is results from legal research on setting time limits for judges to decide industrial relations disputes with legal certainty and justice. This study aims to examine and analyze the ratio legis Article 103 of Law Number 2 of 2004. This research is normative legal research using a statutory approach. This study's conclusion shows that the ratio legis for setting time limits for judges in deciding industrial relations disputes under Article 103 of Law Number 2 of 2004 can be examined into three aspects: philosophical, sociological, and juridical. The philosophical aspects consist of ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Ontology, employers are considered to have a stronger bargaining position than workers. Epistemologically, the settlement of industrial relations disputes is carried out in two ways: non-litigation (bipartite and tripartite) and litigation. Axiologically, the settlement of industrial relations disputes is known as quick value. Sociological Aspects, as a form of social protection and economical protection for workers. The juridical aspect, provides legal protection for workers from formal aspects.