Justice For Sale

Legal politic is a policy of legislation through the stages of formulation/formulation that is the drafting of a regulation both the rules in general and the special rules of criminal by the legislator in this case the legislator with the Government. The errors or weaknesses of the legislative policy are part of a strategic error that can be an obstacle to prevention and crime prevention at the Judicative and Execution stage. The political formation of the future Penal Code does not only deal with the substance of law, the legal structure but rather focuses on the legal culture based on Pancasila as the basis of the State. Renewal of criminal law is more directed to actions in the form of a series of prohibited acts, criminal/false responsibility and punishment system. The method used is mix method consisting of Juridical-Normative legal writing method and collaboration of Juridical-Empirical. The results of this study are the politics of the formation of the National Criminal Code, referring to the Neo-Classical School thought that maintains a balance between the objective (Actus Reus) and Subjective (person/soul/mind/Mens rea) and actually the form of Political law is Unification and codification of law, Supremacy of law, Renewal of national law, Eliminating legal dualism, Increasing legal awareness and legal culture, Firm enforcement is firm, consistent, and non-discriminatory. Keywords: Legal Politic, KUHP, Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945

The article is devoted to administrative legal personality, which is part of the structure of the administrative-legal personality of private legal entities. At the same time, it is argued that, on their own, the rules of law cannot influence the behavior of their addressees, therefore the only instrument by which legal regulation is used to help ensure such influence is the mechanism of legal regulation within which the functions of law are implemented, and specific life situations are addressed. It is noted that, like any state mechanism, the mechanism of legal regulation consists of the relevant elements, namely: norms of law, legal relations, and acts of realization of rights and obligations. Thus, we can conclude that the disclosure of the features of the mechanism of legal regulation is possible only if a thorough study of its elements. Thus, each state that there is no language and there can be no legal regulation, which in its nature and nature is different from other types of regulation. It should also be remembered that, at its core, legal regulation is not material but is done through the consciousness and will of the people. It is perfect. However, any ideal process cannot occur without the participation of matter. Based on all the above, it can be stated that one of the constituent parts of the mechanism of legal regulation is legal relations. It should be remembered that public relations also have an internal structure to which the subject, object, and content relate. However, the absence of at least one of the elements of the relationship automatically complicates, or even precludes their very existence. The same rule applies to the mechanism of legal regulation. Thus, the study of each of the components of the mechanism of legal regulation has the same scientific significance and importance as the study of the mechanism itself. Therefore, if we conduct a study of administrative-legal personality, then it must take into account its place and the impact on legal regulation as a whole. Legal personality nowadays also exists in administrative law, although the very concept of “legal personality”, as a certain characteristic of a legal entity, originally originated in civil law. However, it should be remembered that the method of administrative law is significantly different from civil law, and therefore the use of civil law expertise in the field of legal personality should be used with extreme caution. In his desire to ensure state control and the possibility of applying state coercion, the legislator adapted the rules of public law to the construction of a legal entity of private law. On this basis, it should be noted that different types of legal entities under private law would have different levels of administrative capacity. That is why the legal capacity of legal persons under private law can be recognized as administrative law, both social and legal capacity, and the need to be the subject of administrative-legal relations. Keywords: administrative-legal personality, legal entity, private law, mechanism of legal regulation.

Criminal abuse of influence; in addition to disrupting the rule of law and governance, is one of the complex and serious problems of Afghanistan's judicial system and an obstacle to criminal justice. While the administration of criminal justice and the rule of law are considered the most important issues of governance and the judicial and legal system, this article, using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library and documentary sources, attempts to answer this question: What deficiencies does Afghanistan's judicial-criminal policy face in dealing with criminal abuse of influence? Although this behavior is criminalized under the title of 'abuse of influence' in Afghanistan's Penal Code, findings from examining various dimensions of judicial-criminal policy in dealing with this phenomenon show that legal gaps, weak independence of the judiciary, inefficiency of oversight institutions, lack of coordination between judicial and legal institutions; non-compliance with fundamental criminal principles and sentencing standards, susceptibility of courts and judges to influence, and interference and influence by individuals throughout the judicial process are considered the most significant challenges in the judicial and legal system. The aforementioned deficiencies have led to increased corruption and public distrust in the judicial system, weakened the rule of law and judicial institutions, as well as caused the spread of judicial deviation and social disorder. Measures such as legislative reform and the development of comprehensive and clear laws regarding the crime of abuse of influence, specialized training for judges and staff of judicial and investigative institutions, implementation of measures to reduce political interference and ensure judicial independence, strengthening independent oversight institutions and increasing transparency, establishing effective mechanisms for cooperation between judicial and legal institutions to reform and strengthen judicial-criminal policy regarding criminal abuse of influence; are proposed.

Politik hukum dalam pembangunan Hukum Nasional pasca amandemen undang-undang dasar 1945, dapat disimpulkan sebagai berikut: a) Lahirnya Bentuk Negara Indonesia adalah Negara Kesatuan, b) Bentuk Pemerintahan Indonesia adalah berbentuk Republik dengan sistem presidensiil, c) Negara Indonesia adalah Negara Hukum, d) Struktur Negara Indonesia terdiri dari Pemerintahan pusat dan pemerintahan daerah. Penelitian dilakukan secara Yuridis Normatif mencakup penelitian terhadap asas hukum, sistimatika hukum dan sinkronisasi. Dimana kelembagaan pemerintahan pusat terdiri dari lembaga legislative, eksekutif dan yudikatif sesuai dengan teori separation of power dari Trias Politika dan juga prinsip check and balances antar lembaga Negara. Sedangkan struktur lembaga hanya terdiri dari lembaga legislatif dan lembaga eksekutif dengan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan berdasarkan konsep otonomi dalam bentuk desentralisasi politik (devolusi). Dalam amandemen UUD 1945 proses penegakan hukum Kekuasaan Kehakimam ditangan Mahkamah Agung. Eksekutif tidak lagi lembaga yang mendominasi dalam pembentukan undang-undang sehingga proses Checks and Balance dalam sistem politik dan sistem ketatanegaraan, merupakan dasar dalam politik hukum dan pembangunan hukum pasca amandemen dimana kepala Negara dan Kepala Daerah dipilih melalui perwakilan dan sekarang kedaulatan itu ada ditangan rakyat, termasuk konsep Negara hukum The Rule Of Law yang menjamin dan melindungi hak rakyat (HAM) dan pemisahan kekuasaan yang jelas.

Indonesia is a state based on law which is governed by a just law. This commitment is contained in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which states that Indonesia is a constitutional state. Some critical principles of the state of law is the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary and the supremacy of law that contains the principle of equality before the law and the principle of legality (due process of law). In accordance with the principle of a rule of law, Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia affirms that the judicial power is an independent power to administer justice to enforce law and justice. Independent judicial powers are described in Article 3 of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning the Judicial Power (Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman/UUKK), namely that in carrying out their duties and functions, judges are obliged to maintain the independence of the judiciary. Other parties outside the judicial power are prohibited from interfering in judicial affairs. The rule of law also requires the principle of legality in all forms, namely that prohibited acts must be formulated in statutory regulations and these regulations must exist before the prohibited act is committed. Article 6 paragraph (2) UUKK states that no one can be brought before the court, unless the law provides otherwise. The principle of legality in criminal law is regulated in Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana/KUHP), which states that an act cannot be punished, except based on the strength of the existing criminal legislation. However, in the face of a concrete case that he/she is confronted with, a judge must make a decision based on law and justice. Law and justice have a broader meaning than statutory regulations. Article 5 Paragraph (1) of UUKK explains that judges are obliged to explore, follow, and understand legal values and a sense of justice that lives in society. This provision emphasizes that judges are not the mouthpiece of the law; they have the obligation to provide a sense of justice to the community. Judges should not be trapped in a vacuum if there is no law, the law is unclear or does not match the value of justice. This study seeks to examine how judges make or discover their legal decisions on criminal cases of narcotics abuse. It argues that in adjudicating criminal cases of the use of narcotics, judges need to find the law, because from the perspective of legism or legal positivism, Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics is unable to provide justice for narcotics abusers for their own use. Narcotics abusers can be subject to criminal sanctions using the article on illicit narcotics trafficking as referred to in Article 111 Paragraph (1), Article 112 Paragraph (1) and Article 114 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 Year 2009 concerning Narcotics. The narcotics abuser for their own use should be punished in accordance with Article 127 Paragraph (1) letter a of Law Number 35 Year 2009 concerning Narcotics.

As a social norm, law in a democratic society should be established in the form of positive law by collecting opinions of people. In order for the rule of law to be properly practiced in a democratic country, the doctrine of separation of powers requires that the legislative, executive, and judicial functions should not be consolidated in a single body. However, even within a perfectly established legislative system, the principle of the rule of law may be distorted depending on the role of the judiciary. The experience of the Korean judiciary shows that even though it is designed to be a completely independent organ of the lawmaking National Assembly and the law-enforcing executive branch; it would fail to properly give effect to the country’s governing principle of the rule of law. It may be thought that the fundamental reasons lie in the endemic tendency towards the rule of man in East Asian societies. Nowadays, those who received education in a democratic society without experiencing the authoritarianism have begun to make inroads into the leadership of the judicial branch. They can be firmly determined to prevent freedom and rights of every single person from being infringed upon. In this way, they can be confident that the judiciary has fulfilled its roles in shaping a democratic country where the rule of law is exercised properly as a governing principle.

The rule of law is often cast as the primary governance ideology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a capitalist, common law legal jurisdiction that had, at least until a recent political crackdown, strained to differentiate itself from authoritarian, socialist, mainland China over its northern border. This article explores government conceptions of the rule of law in Hong Kong, benchmarked against rule of law standards adopted by member states at the United Nations (UN). We argue that Hong Kong’s ‘official’ rule of law definition is at odds with an evolving international consensus on the rule of law within domestic legal and political systems. This has especially been the case after 2005, with the strengthening of rule of law discourse at the UN General Assembly and the rule of law’s increasing political contestation and weaponisation in Hong Kong. Compared with the contemporary consensus expressed at the UN, Hong Kong’s rule of law definition, as favoured by the territory’s executive, legislative and judicial branches, possesses a narrower ambit, but is also more finely articulated.

European Science Foundation: Standing Committee for the Social Sciences SCSS) Standing Committee for the Humanities (SCH)

Law Shapes Politics: How Legal Structure Influences Political Discourse and Policymaking at All Levels of Governance

This article aims to explore the independence of the judiciary as an important pillar of a rule of law. Independence of the judiciary is a necessary condition for maintaining the rule of law, only constitutional law has legitimacy that must be upheld and the court should have the ability to perform a task in deciding the law. The independence of judges to examine, prosecute and deciding have guaranteed in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 and Act No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, with the purpose judge in his judicial function can actually examine, prosecute and deciding on cases based on the law and justice. Keywords : Judge, Judicial Independence, Judiciary Power.

Abstract:The corruption of the rule of law is an ambiguous phrase. It can refer either to the corruption of the value of the rule of law or to the corrupting effect that the commitment to the rule of law produces. This essay explains how both can be the case. The rule of law is one of a cluster of values that liberal political theory requires a morally legitimate government to exemplify. Thus, the rule of law is a component part of a just political structure. However, the phrase "the rule of law" is often used colloquially to refer to most or all of the cluster of liberal values. When used in this way, a duty to obey the law often attaches itself to the concept of the rule of law. It is the association of this duty with the concept of the rule of law when used in its narrow, literal sense to refer to only one of the liberal values that corrupts both those who are committed to the rule of law and the respect for the value itself.

The 21st century saw the rapid development of the administration of the nations of the world. With the development, it is essential to ensure that administrator entrusted with the administration of the country perform its duties in accordance with the rule of law. It must not act arbitrarily. Discretionary power if given to the administrator, it is limited. This is to guarantee that administrator in performing its duties would not infringe rights of an individual or community, especially fundamental rights. To make certain that this is achieved, an effective mechanism for the protection of rights, especially human or fundamental rights in state administration is needed. Judicial review is one of the effective mechanism to supervise and control action of the administrator. This mechanism is available in Administrative Law. Under the instrument, grounds of judicial review is made available to review action of the administrator. Currently, there are two streams of judicial review: Administrative Review and Constitutional Review. The former is a non-right based review of administrator’s power founded on the traditional common law using Wednesbury objective test or CCSU grounds not involving violation of fundamental and human right and the procedures. Meanwhile, the latter is a right-based review involving the exercise of administrative powers that violate the constitutional right of an individual or community, particularly, fundamental rights. The traditional common law, nevertheless, are inadequate in addressing review of administrative action involving violation of fundamental rights. For that reasons constitutional review as another stream in judicial review was developed. This was illustrated looking into the development in United Kingdom, India, Malaysia, South Africa and Hong Kong. With the expansion, mentioned the common law countries are capable of providing a more comprehensive and meaningful protection to an individual or community against unlawful act of the administrator that violates rights, especially human and fundamental rights. Consequently, state integrity is strengthen and be more accountable to the community. Hence, state can develop administration that is sound, and efficient in human, natural, economic and financial management. The proper enforcement of human rights will promote political and socio-economic stability, provide legal certainty and it encourages investors to invest in the country.

Law enforcement of judicial mafia lies in the quality of its institutions, or on thelegal structure dimension. The quality of this institution is closely related to thequality and integrity of the apparatus within it, the integrity of the apparatus mustbe ensured since the recruitment process and maintained and maintained in thecoaching process. Judicial mafia arises because of the collusion among theelements of the stakeholders of the judiciary, the destruction of the stakeholdersthat led to the emergence of various judicial mafia practices in Indonesia. Thecourt as the last bastion of justice and law enforcement is certainly expected to beindependent and impartial in accordance with the demands of the rule of law. Thecourt institution can not be independent and impartial if there is still a network ofcrimes that undermine our judicial system. Courts that only give justice to thosewho are strong and have access, will cultivate what is feared by Tamahana thatlaw is only a tool (law as instrumentalism) for those who have access and power.This is where the threat to the principle of Indonesian legal state.

As we have discussed in Chapters one and two of this monograph, the social system is welded together by institutions of the three blocks of economic, political and legal structures. Each of these structures has its own identity for recognition and yet is connected to each other to establish the unity of the political economy as a complex self-improving and self-transformation system. The social system must be seen as an automatic control system where the automatic controllers are linked to the decision-choice system. The economic structure is the foundation of life; the political structure is the foundation of social decision-making power and; the legal structure is the foundation of the social control and stability regarding the individual and collective decision-choice behavior in the three structures. In this respect, the political structure, endowed with the decision-making power, shapes and manages all three structures for coherence, stability and systemic risk associated with the collective decision-choice system of the political economy. At the same time, it is also shaped by the interactive behaviors of the three structures as they affect the social existence. The outcomes and social mandates of the interactive behavior create the environment for rent creation and harvesting.KeywordsPolitical EconomyLegal StructureReal SectorDebt MarketNational WealthThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This article examines the evolving dynamics of judicial power and their implications for the implementation of the rule of law principle in Indonesia. The study specifically addresses the persistent gap between the normative guarantees of judicial independence and access to justice, and their practical realization within Indonesia’s legal and political framework. Employing a combined normative and empirical approach, the research analyzes constitutional and statutory provisions, key Constitutional Court decisions, and the implementation of legal aid programs, particularly those targeting vulnerable groups such as low-income communities and persons with disabilities. Empirical insights were derived from documentary analysis and secondary data related to judicial reform initiatives. The findings reveal that although the legal framework has strengthened the formal autonomy of the judiciary, structural constraints, political interventions, and administrative inefficiencies continue to undermine its independence and the equitable enforcement of justice. These obstacles not only affect the impartiality of judicial decision-making but also challenge public trust and the legitimacy of judicial institutions. Drawing on theories of rule of law and judicial independence, the study argues that a substantive realization of the rule of law in Indonesia requires more than normative affirmation; it demands institutional reform, transparent judicial appointments, and participatory oversight mechanisms. This research contributes to constitutional law scholarship by offering a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between judicial power, political structures, and access to justice, while proposing a reform-oriented framework for strengthening the judiciary’s role in upholding a democratic and equitable rule of law in Indonesia.