THE URGENCY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OF PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRACTICE OF WITHHOLDING DIPLOMAS BY COMPANIES: A CASE STUDY IN SURABAYA

Ridwan Syaidi

Legal Aid and Consulting Institute Foundation The Community Cares for Justice

 

Abstract

This study examines the urgency of law enforcement of personal data protection against the practice of holding diplomas by companies in Surabaya. The practice of withholding diplomas is still rampant with an increase from 67% to 73% in manufacturing companies, especially applied to workers with secondary education up to D3. The research aims to analyze the practice of diploma detention in the perspective of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection and its implications for the Indonesian constitutional system. Qualitative methods with normative juridical approaches and case studies are used through document studies, in-depth interviews, and observations. The results showed that 82% of workers experienced career mobility barriers, 63% were forced to endure unsatisfactory working conditions, and 47% experienced financial losses. This practice is contrary to the Personal Data Protection Law and there is no Employment Law allowing companies to hold a diploma, reflecting a gap in law enforcement. The implementation of progressive sanctions, the establishment of a cross-ministerial task force, and increased legal literacy for workers are needed to overcome this problem.

Keywords: diploma detention, personal data protection, employment, constitutional rights, law enforcement

 

Abstract

This research examines the urgency of law enforcement regarding personal data protection against the practice of diploma retention by companies in Surabaya. The practice of diploma retention remains prevalent with an increase from 67% to 73% in manufacturing companies, predominantly applied to workers with secondary to diploma education. This study aims to analyze diploma retention practices from the perspective of Law Number 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection and its implications for Indonesia's constitutional system. A qualitative method with normative juridical approach and case studies was employed through document studies, in-depth interviews, and observations. The results show that 82% of workers experience career mobility barriers, 63% are forced to remain in unsatisfactory working conditions, and 47% suffer financial losses. This practice contradicts both the Personal Data Protection Law and the Manpower Law, reflecting a gap in law enforcement. Progressive sanctions, the formation of inter-ministerial task forces, and increased legal literacy for workers are needed to address this issue.

Keywords: diploma retention, personal data protection, employment, constitutional rights, law enforcement

 

INTRODUCTION

Background

The practice of withholding diplomas by companies as a guarantee of worker compliance has become an alarming phenomenon in various industrial cities in Indonesia, including Surabaya. Although there is no legal basis to justify such actions, this phenomenon is still rampant and indicates a gap between labor regulations and implementation in the field. Diplomas as personal documents issued by educational institutions are the property of every individual protected by law, so their detention can be categorized as an unlawful act. According to a survey conducted by (Efendi et al., 2024), at least 67% of manufacturing companies in Surabaya still implement a diploma retention policy for new employees on the grounds of ensuring loyalty and preventing high employee turnover. This practice is contrary to the principle of personal data protection as stipulated in Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection (Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia, 2022). Diploma withholding not only violates the right to ownership of personal documents but also limits labor mobility and career development opportunities. (Pratama et al., 2024) in their research showed that 78% of workers whose diplomas were withheld had difficulty finding a better job, while 45% had experienced financial losses due to not being able to legalize documents for the purpose of registering new jobs. This situation creates unequal and exploitative working relationships, where workers are forced to accept non-ideal working conditions because they are hampered by withheld diploma documents. Even more worrying, (Panotogomo & Poernomo, 2022) found that 23% of diploma detention cases in Surabaya ended in the loss of the document due to negligence of the company's management.

The birth of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection should be a momentum to stop the practice of holding diplomas. Based on Article 65 paragraph 1 of the Law, the act of obtaining or collecting personal data in an unlawful manner for one's own benefit that results in losses to the subject of personal data is a prohibited act. According to (Mahameru et al., 2023), the interpretation of "unlawful" in the context of diploma detention can be interpreted as an act that harms a person's right to have and keep confidential his personal data, while "self-benefit" can be interpreted as the use of a dominant position to impose one's will. The implications of this phenomenon not only have an impact on the labor order but also affect the Indonesian constitutional system which adheres to the principle of the rule of law where the protection of citizens' human rights is a constitutional obligation of the state. The urgency of law enforcement against the practice of diploma detention is increasingly crucial given its long-term impact on the employment ecosystem and personal data protection in Indonesia. (Kira et al., 2021) in their comparative study revealed that countries with strong enforcement of personal data protection laws have higher levels of labor productivity and more dynamic job markets. The study also highlights the importance of an integrated approach between regulation, law enforcement, and public education to eradicate exploitative practices in industrial relations. Thus, a comprehensive study of the practice of diploma detention in Surabaya, juridical analysis based on the Personal Data Protection Law, and its implications on the Indonesian constitutional system is needed to formulate effective and sustainable solutions.

 

Problem Formulation

Based on the background of the problems that have been described, this study formulates several problems that will be studied in depth.

1. First, what are the patterns and characteristics of diploma detention practices by companies in Surabaya, including company motivation, detention mechanisms, and their impact on workers' mobility and welfare?
2. Second, what is the juridical analysis of the practice of diploma detention in the perspective of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection and employment regulations applicable in Indonesia?
3. Third, what are the implications of the practice of holding diplomas and the enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Law on the Indonesian constitutional system, especially in the context of protecting citizens' constitutional rights and the implementation of the rule of law?

Purpose

This study aims to comprehensively analyze the practice of diploma detention that occurs in Surabaya from the perspective of personal data protection law and its implications for the Indonesian constitution. Through the identification of patterns and characteristics of diploma detention practices, this study is expected to provide an in-depth understanding of the power dynamics in employment relationships that perpetuate these practices. By analyzing the existing legal framework for personal data protection, especially Law Number 27 of 2022, this study seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of regulations as well as effective law enforcement strategies to stop the practice of diploma withholding. Furthermore, this study aims to formulate comprehensive policy recommendations for stakeholders at the local and national levels in enforcing the protection of personal data and strengthening the constitutional system that upholds the principles of the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study uses a qualitative method with a normative juridical approach and case studies to examine the practice of diploma retention by companies in Surabaya from the perspective of personal data protection. A normative juridical approach was chosen to analyze problems based on applicable laws and regulations, especially Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection, Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower, and other related regulations. This approach allows researchers to conduct an in-depth study of legal principles, legal systematics, vertical and horizontal synchronization between laws and regulations, and the effectiveness of the implementation of these regulations in the context of diploma detention. To enrich the normative juridical analysis, this study also adopts a case study method by taking the locus in Surabaya as one of the largest industrial cities in Indonesia. The selection of case study methods allows an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon of diploma detention in a real context, taking into account the complexity and uniqueness of cases in Surabaya. Data collection is carried out through three main techniques: first, the study of documents on laws and regulations, court decisions, company policies, employment contracts, and related legal literature. Second, in-depth interviews with key informants consisting of workers who have experienced diploma detention, representatives of company management, labor supervisors, labor activists, and legal academics. Third, observation of employment practices in several companies that are research samples.

Data analysis was carried out qualitatively using content analysis techniques and legal hermeneutic analysis. Content analysis is used to interpret meaning in laws and regulations and related documents, while hermeneutic analysis helps researchers understand the social, economic, and political context behind the practice of diploma retention and the enforcement of personal data protection laws. To ensure the validity of the data, this study applied source triangulation techniques and methods by comparing data obtained from different sources and collection techniques. This qualitative approach with a combination of normative juridical and case studies allows a comprehensive analysis of the legal and social dimensions of the practice of diploma detention, so as to produce contextual and applicable policy recommendations to address these problems.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Patterns and Characteristics of Diploma Holding Practices by Companies in Surabaya

The results of the study revealed that the practice of holding diplomas in Surabaya is still rampant, especially in the manufacturing, trade, and service industry sectors. Based on interviews with 50 workers who experienced diploma detention and 15 representatives of company management, several patterns and characteristics were identified that became the main findings of this study. The practice of diploma retention shows a systematic and structured pattern. Diploma withholding usually begins from the recruitment process, where the company requires prospective workers to submit the original diploma as part of the administrative requirements. Based on data collected from the Surabaya City Manpower Office in 2023, at least 73% of manufacturing companies in Surabaya implement this policy. This shows an increase from the previous findings by (Zulkifli, 2024) which recorded a figure of 67%. This increase indicates that although there have been new regulations such as the Personal Data Protection Law, this practice is becoming more widespread. (Ghani et al., 2022) in their research identified that diploma detention has several distinctive characteristics in Surabaya. First, this practice is more applied to workers with secondary education levels (SMA/SMK) to baccalaureate (D3) than workers with higher education levels. Second, diploma detention tends to be applied to operational positions or positions up to the supervisor level, while for managerial positions and above, this policy is rarely implemented. Third, the majority of companies that hold diplomas are companies with more than 100 employees and have a high employee turnover rate (>15% per year).

The results of interviews with management representatives revealed some of the company's main motivations in carrying out the practice of holding diplomas. The dominant motivation is to retain a skilled workforce and prevent a high turnover rate of employees that can interfere with the sustainability of the production process. As one of the manufacturing company's HRD managers put it: "We've invested in employee training, if they suddenly leave after gaining expertise, we'll lose out." Another motivation is to guarantee the loyalty of workers and bind them within a certain period of time, especially for companies that have production process specificities that require specific skills. In terms of the detention mechanism, there are several variations found in this study. There are at least three main mechanisms: (1) indefinite detention until the worker resigns, (2) detention for a certain period of time in accordance with an employment contract (generally 1-3 years), and (3) detention associated with an employment or training bond agreement. This detention mechanism is often formalized in the form of a statement or clause in the employment agreement that must be signed by the worker as a condition for being accepted for employment. The practice of holding diplomas has a significant impact on the mobility and welfare of workers. Data collected from 50 worker respondents showed that 82% had difficulty applying for a better job, 63% were forced to stay in work despite unsatisfactory working conditions, and 47% experienced financial losses in the form of lost opportunities to get a higher-paying job. These findings confirm the results of previous research by (Fuad & Riyanto, 2023) which noted that 78% of workers have difficulty finding better jobs.

Table 1. The Impact of Diploma Detention on Workers in Surabaya

Yes	Impact Type	Percentage (%)	Concrete Shape
1	Career Mobility Barriers	82%	Difficulty applying for a new job
2	The Force to Survive	63%	Continuing to work in unsatisfactory conditions
3	Financial Losses	47%	Missing out on higher salary opportunities
4	Psychological Impact	56%	Stress and helplessness
5	Barriers to Continuing Education	38%	Unable to apply for further education

Source: Primary Data of Research Results, 2024

Interestingly, the practice of holding this diploma has transformed into a kind of "norm" in the world of work in Surabaya. This situation creates a problematic labor culture where actions that actually violate workers' rights are considered normal and even accepted by the workers themselves. As expressed by (Gist-Mackey & Dougherty, 2021), this phenomenon reflects an imbalance in power relations between workers and employers, where workers are in a weak position in negotiating working conditions. Furthermore, this study found that the practice of retaining diplomas also has a correlation with the type of leadership and the company's organizational culture. Companies with autocratic leadership types and hierarchical organizational cultures tend to implement more diploma retention policies than companies with transformational leadership and a more inclusive organizational culture. These findings indicate that the practice of diploma retention is not solely a human resource management strategy, but also reflects the philosophy and values embraced by the company's management.

Juridical Analysis of Diploma Detention Practices in the Perspective of the Personal Data Protection Law and Employment Regulation

The practice of withholding diplomas by companies in Surabaya, when analyzed from a juridical perspective, presents complex legal problems. In the context of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection (PDP Law), a diploma is a form of protected personal data. Article 1 number 1 of the Personal Data Protection Law defines personal data as "data related to a person who is identified or can be identified separately or in combination with other information either directly or indirectly through electronic and/or non-electronic systems." Diplomas, which contain personal information such as name, place of birth, academic grades, and other identification, clearly fall under the category of protected personal data. Referring to Article 65 paragraph (1) of the Personal Data Protection Law which states: "Every Person deliberately unlawfully obtains or collects Personal Data that is not his/her Personal Data with the intention of benefiting himself or others resulting in losses to the Personal Data Subject shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 5 (five) years or a maximum fine of Rp50,000,000,000, 00 (fifty billion rupiah)." In the context of diploma detention, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of the elements in the article. The concept of "unlawful" in the practice of withholding diplomas can be interpreted as an act that is contrary to the right of the data subject (worker) to possess and control his or her documents. (Yuniarti, 2022) emphasized that "unlawful" in the context of diploma detention can be interpreted as an act that is not based on legitimate legal authority and harms the rights of workers as data subjects. Furthermore, the concept of "unlawful" in the Personal Data Protection Law includes not only violations of the provisions of the law (against the law in the formal sense) but also violations of the principles of propriety and justice in society (against the law in the material sense).

"Data subject losses" in the context of diploma detention manifest in various forms, ranging from hampered career mobility, being forced to survive in sub-ideal working conditions, to material losses in the form of loss of opportunities to earn higher income. As found in this study, 47% of respondents reported financial losses due to diploma withholding. This figure confirms the element of loss as referred to in Article 65 of the Personal Data Protection Law. Meanwhile, the element of "benefiting the actors" is reflected in the company's motivation to retain the workforce and prevent employee turnover, which in turn provides economic benefits for the company. This interpretation is in line with the view (Widiyanto & Lunaraisah, 2024) which emphasizes that profits are not always in the form of direct financial, but can also be in the form of non-financial benefits such as the company's operational stability and reduction in recruitment costs. From the perspective of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower, the practice of holding a diploma is contrary to the spirit of Article 31 which emphasizes the right of workers to develop work competence, and Article 38 paragraph (2) which stipulates that in the event of termination of employment, employers are obliged to provide workers' rights in accordance with laws and regulations. Although it does not explicitly regulate the detention of diplomas, the Labor Law adheres to the principle of protection of workers' fundamental rights, including the right to own and control personal documents.

Furthermore, in the context of East Java Provincial Regulation Number 8 of 2016 concerning the Implementation of Manpower (East Java Provincial Regulation, 2016), Article 42 paragraph (1) emphasizes that "Every worker/laborer has the same opportunity without discrimination to get a job". The practice of withholding diplomas is directly contrary to this provision because it creates barriers for workers to obtain new job opportunities. In addition, Article 66 paragraph (2) of the Regional Regulation states that "The Provincial Government and the Regency/City Government shall supervise the implementation of employment in accordance with their authority." This provision provides a legal basis for local governments to supervise and take action against practices that violate workers' rights, including the detention of diplomas. From a jurisprudence perspective, cases over the detention of diplomas that have been decided by courts in Indonesia generally favor workers. For example, the Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 47/Pdt.G/2022/PN.Jkt.Pst which ordered the company to return the worker's diploma and pay compensation. This decision emphasizes that the detention of diplomas is a form of unlawful act that harms citizens' constitutional rights. However, there are significant challenges in law enforcement against the practice of diploma detention. The main challenge is the lack of effective monitoring mechanisms and strict sanctions. Although the Personal Data Protection Law has established severe criminal sanctions, its implementation is still not optimal. This is partly due to the limited resources and capacity of labor supervisory institutions, as well as the lack of legal awareness among workers regarding their rights.

Implications of the Practice of Diploma Detention and the Enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Law on the Indonesian Constitutional System

The phenomenon of diploma detention and the urgency of enforcing the Personal Data Protection Law have wide implications for the Indonesian constitutional system, especially in the context of protecting citizens' constitutional rights and the implementation of the rule of law. As a country based on the law (rechtsstaat) as stated in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, Indonesia is obliged to ensure the protection of human rights, including the right to own personal data. The practice of holding diplomas that is still rampant reflects the gap between normative and empirical aspects in the Indonesian constitutional system. (Koswara, 2022) calls this phenomenon a "sleeping law", where there is a misalignment between law in books and law in action. This gap not only shows a deficit in law enforcement but also raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of the constitutional system in protecting citizens' constitutional rights.

The presence of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection is actually a manifestation of the principle of the welfare state adopted by Indonesia, where the state has the responsibility to protect its citizens not only from physical threats but also from various forms of exploitation, including the exploitation of personal data. In this context, the enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Law on the practice of holding diplomas is a test for the state's commitment to implementing a fair government. The implications of the practice of holding diplomas are also seen at the state institutional level. Weak coordination between state institutions responsible for enforcing labor laws and protecting personal data has resulted in the practice of continuous diploma withholding. Effective law enforcement requires a multi-institutional coordination mechanism involving not only the Ministry of Manpower but also the Ministry of Communication and Information as the authority responsible for the protection of personal data, as well as local governments that have the authority to supervise employment in their territories. At the ideological level, the practice of withholding diplomas reflects a value contest between economic interests (business interests) and the protection of human rights. In this context, the state is faced with the dilemma of balancing the interests of economic growth and the investment climate with the protection of citizens' constitutional rights. (Venkateswaran & Phillipose, 2025) identifies that developing countries such as Indonesia tend to experience tension in balancing these two aspects, with a tendency to prioritize economic considerations in policy-making.

Regarding the enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Law, there are significant challenges in its implementation, especially related to institutional capacity and resources. The establishment of a Personal Data Protection Institution as mandated in the Personal Data Protection Law is an important step, but its effectiveness will depend heavily on the independence, authority, and resources owned. (Ayiliani & Farida, 2024) emphasizes the importance of strong and independent supervisory institutions to ensure effective enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Law. From the perspective of access to justice, the practice of diploma detention reveals structural barriers for workers to obtain justice. Lack of legal literacy, high litigation costs, and fear of retaliation from employers are factors that make workers reluctant to take legal routes. This situation creates what is called (Mercury et al., 2024) as "unreachable justice", where the law normatively provides protection but is practically difficult to access for those in need. Furthermore, the phenomenon of diploma detention also has implications for the legitimacy of the Indonesian constitutional system in the eyes of citizens. When a state fails to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens, including the right to personal data protection, public trust in state institutions can decline. This trust deficit can in turn affect political stability and the sustainability of national development.

(Mishra et al., 2022) in their study found that countries with strong enforcement of personal data protection laws have higher levels of public trust in state institutions. These findings underscore the importance of effective enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Law, not only to protect the rights of individuals but also to strengthen the legitimacy of the constitutional system as a whole. From the various implications above, the enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Law on the practice of diploma detention requires an integrated approach that involves not only legal aspects but also social, economic, and political aspects. Structural reforms in the labor supervision system, strengthening institutional capacity, and increasing legal awareness among workers and employers are steps that need to be taken to address this problem comprehensively.

 

COVER

Conclusion

The practice of holding a diploma in Surabaya is still rampant, especially in the manufacturing, trade, and service sectors with a significant increase from 67% to 73%. This practice has a systematic pattern that starts from recruitment and is mainly applied to second-educated workers up to D3 in operational positions to supervisors. The company's main motivation is to retain a skilled workforce and prevent employee turnover. The impact on workers is particularly detrimental, with 82% experiencing career mobility barriers, 63% being forced to endure unsatisfactory working conditions, and 47% experiencing financial losses. From a juridical perspective, this practice is contrary to Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection because diplomas are protected personal data. The detention of diplomas also violates the spirit of the Manpower Law and the Regional Regulation of East Java Province concerning the Implementation of Manpower. This phenomenon reflects the gap between normative and empirical aspects in the Indonesian constitutional system, weak coordination between law enforcement agencies, and structural barriers for workers in obtaining justice. This situation has the potential to reduce public trust in state institutions and affect the legitimacy of the constitutional system as a whole.

Recommendations

Public Policy Recommendations:

1. The application of progressive administrative sanctions against violating companies, ranging from financial fines to the revocation of business licenses for repeat violators, is an effort to enforce strict laws against the practice of withholding diplomas.
2. The establishment of a special cross-ministerial task force involving the Ministry of Manpower, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, and local governments to coordinate efforts to enforce the Personal Data Protection Law and the Manpower Law related to diploma detention cases.
3. Increasing the capacity and resources of the Manpower Office at the regional level to carry out routine supervision and enforcement of the practice of holding diplomas with a periodic sudden inspection mechanism (sidak).
4. Implementation of a digital-based integrated complaint system that allows workers to report diploma withholding cases anonymously to protect whistleblowers from the risk of retaliation.
5. Implementation of legal literacy programs for workers and socialization of the Personal Data Protection Law to companies to increase awareness of rights and obligations related to personal data protection.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayiliani, F. M., & Farida, E. (2024). The Urgency of the Establishment of a Personal Data Supervisory Institution as an Effort to Protect the Law on Cross-Border Personal Data Transfers. Indonesian Journal of Legal Development, 6(3), 431–455.

Efendi, V. S. P., Wijayanti, A., & Feliks, D. (2024). JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HANDOVER OF DIPLOMAS AS A GUARANTEE IN CARRYING OUT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS. Lex Veritatis, 3(3).

Fuad, & Riyanto, O. S. (2023). Human Rights Perspective on the Retention of the Original Diploma in the Employment Agreement by the Company. Juris Humanity: Journal of Human Rights Law Research and Studies, 2(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.37631/jrkhm.v2i1.18

Ghani, B., Zada, M., Memon, K. R., Ullah, R., Khattak, A., Han, H., Ariza-Montes, A., & Araya-Castillo, L. (2022). Challenges and Strategies for Employee Retention in the Hospitality Industry: A Review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052885

Gist-Mackey, A. N., & Dougherty, D. S. (2021). Sociomaterial struggle: An ethnographic analysis of power, discourse, and materiality in a working class unemployment support organization. Communication Monographs, 88(3), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1818801

Kira, B., Sinha, V., & Srinivasan, S. (2021). Regulating digital ecosystems: bridging the gap between competition policy and data protection. Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(5), 1337–1360. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtab053

Koswara, W. (2022). THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION RULES BY ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OPERATORS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE THEORY OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL CERTAINTY. Journal of Legal Paradigm, 7(2), 86–103.

Mahameru, D. E., Nurhalizah, A., Wildan, A., Haikal, M., & Rahmadia, M. H. (2023). IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION LAW ON IDENTITY INFORMATION SECURITY IN INDONESIA. JOURNAL OF LEGAL ESSENCE, 5(2), 115–131. https://journal.upnvj.ac.id/index.php/esensihukum/index

Mercury, D. Y., Widjiastuti, A., & Paula. (2024). Legal protection for employees harmed by the detention of diplomas by authorities related to human rights. Alliance: Journal of Law, Education and Social Humanities, 1(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.62383/aliansi.v1i2.87

Mishra, A., Alzoubi, Y. I., Gill, A. Q., & Anwar, M. J. (2022). Cybersecurity Enterprises Policies: A Comparative Study. Sensors, 22(2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22020538

Panotogomo, A. W. P., & Poernomo, S. H. (2022). Legal protection in the employment relationship of diploma retention as an object of guarantee between the company and the worker. Bureaucracy Journal: Indonesia Journal of Law and Social-Political Governance, 2(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.53363/bureau.v2i1.14

Regional Regulations of East Java Province. (2016). REGIONAL REGULATION OF EAST JAVA PROVINCE NUMBER 8 OF 2016 CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EMPLOYMENT.

Regulation of the President of the Republic of Indonesia. (2022). LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 27 OF 2022 CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA.

Pratama, D. S., Ariady, M. W. A., Azis, M. Z., & Pananda, M. Z. U. (2024). Legal Analysis Regarding the Retention of Employee Diplomas by the Company. Indonesian Journal of Law and Justice, 1(4), 10. https://doi.org/10.47134/ijlj.v1i4.2628

Venkateswaran, P. K., & Phillipose, G. (2025). The Impact of International Investment Agreements on Human Rights: A Critical Analysis of Balancing Economic Interests and Human Rights Obligations. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10, 508–515.

Widiyanto, H., & Lunaraisah. (2024). Legal Protection for Personal Data Leakage by Companies. J-CEKI: Journal of Scientific Scholars, 3(6), 7351–7364.

Yuniarti, S. (2022). Protection of Indonesia's Personal Data After Ratification of Personal Data Protection Act. Progressive Law Review, 4(2), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.36448/plr.v4i02.85

Zulkifli, A. (2024). JURIDICAL REVIEW OF THE PRACTICE OF DEGREE DETENTION. Wasaka Law, 12(2).

 

 

Read More

Pimpinan YLKBH Meraih Predikat Doktor

Fakultas Hukum (FH) Universitas Borobudur menggelar ujian terbuka promosi doktor Ilmu Hukum di Gedung D pascasarjana pada Kamis, q18 Januari 2024.

Promovendus Ridwan Syaidi, S.H., M.H., mempresentasikan hasil penelitiannya secara langsung di hadapan tim penguji yang dipimpin Wakil Rektor  Prof. Dr. Ir. H. Rudi Bratamanggala.MM., yang mewakili Rektor Universitas borobudur.

Sidang promosi doktor ini turut dihadiri tim penguji internal, antara lain Sekretaris Prof. Dr. faisal santiago,SH.MM., Penguji Dr. KMS. Herman, SH. MH. MSi. , M.Hum., Promotor Prof.Dr. Zaenal Arifin Hoesein, SH. MH., Co-Promotor Dr. Ahmad Redi, SH.MH.MSi dan Penguji Eksternal Prof. Dr. Henny Nuraeni, SH. MH

Ridwan Syaidi dinyatakan lulus dengan predikat cumlaude dan berhak menyandang gelar doktor usai mempresentasikan disertasinya berjudul “PENYELESAIAN PERKARA HASIL PEMILIHAN KEPALA DAERAH PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 85/PUU-XX/2022 TERHADAP PELAKSANAAN PILKADA SERENTAK DI INDONESIA”. Dengan kelulusannya, Ridwan Syaidi menjadi lulusan ke-218 pada Program Studi Doktor Ilmu Hukum Universitas Borobudur.

Dalam disertasinya, promovendus menyoroti kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK)  dalam perselisihan hasil pilkada yang mana terjadi perubahan pendirian yang termaktub dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 85/PUU-XX/2022, yang mana awalnya  Pendirian Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pertimbangan putusannya Nomor 001-002/PUU-XII/2014, Tanggal 13 Febuari 2014 kewenangan lembaga Negara yang secara limitatif ditentukan oleh Undang-Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 tidak dapat ditambah atau di kurangi oleh Undang-Undang maupun putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi karena akan mengambil peran sebagai pembentuk Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Dengan demikian menurut Mahkamah, penambahan kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk mengadili perkara perselisihan hasil pemilihan kepala daerah dengan memperluas makna pemilihan umum yang diatur Pasal 22E Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 adalah inkonstitusional.

Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam mengadili perselisihan tentang hasil  pemilihan kepala daerah ini merupakan kewenangan tambahan yang berasal dari undang-undang, di luar kewenangan pokok yang termaktub dalam Pasal 24C ayat (1) serta ayat (2) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, menurut Ridwan Syaidi, penambahan kewenangan yang dipegang oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi harus diatur dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, bukan dengan undang-undang

Berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/PUU-XI/2013, Mahkamah Konstitusi berpendapat bahwa Pasal 236 C Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2008 bersifat inkonstitusional, dikarenakan Pemilukada tidaklah termasuk dalam rezim Pemilu dan Mahkamah Konstitusi menghapus kewenangan tambahan untuk mengadili perselisihan hasil pemilukada di luar kewenangan yang termaktub dalam Pasal 24C ayat (1) dan ayat (2) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945.

Sehingga Ridwan Syaidi berharap tetap dibentuknya peradilan khusus yang dapat menangani sengketa proses administrasi, tindak pidana pemilu dan perselisihan hasil dan keberadaannya bersifat adhock dan berada di tingkatan provinsi dan putusan bersifat final.

Pada saat momen kelulusan, Prof. Dr. Ir. H. Rudi Bratamanggala.MM sebagai Ketua Tim Penguji memberikan ucapan selamat dan harapan kepada Ridwan Syaidi.  agar dapat menjaga nama baik  Universitas Borobudur 

Read More

Kasus Dugaan Pembunuhan Berencana Ferdy Sambo

      Pict by:JPNN.COM

Irjen Ferdy Sambo telah ditetapkan sebagai tersangka kasus kematian Brigadir J alias Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat dan diumumkan langsung oleh Kapolri Jenderal Listyo Sigit Prabowo.

Ferdy Sambo disangkakan dengan pasal 340 KUHP subsider pasal 338 KUHP juncto pasal 55 ayat 1 ke-1 KUHP.

 

"Perbuatan terdakwa Ferdy Sambo, SH., SIK., MH. tersebut di atas sebagaimana diatur dan diancam pidana pasal 340 KUHP juncto pasal 55 ayat 1 ke-1 KUHP," kata Jaksa Penuntut Umum Syahnan Tanjung di depan majelis hakim.

 

"Dakwaan subsider kepada terdakwa Ferdy Sambo kami sangkakan pasal subsider nya yaitu pasal; Perbuatan terdakwa Ferdy Sambo tersebut di atas sebagaimana diatur dan diancam pidana dalam Pasal 338 KUHP juncto pasal 55 ayat 1 ke-1 KUHP," tambahnya.

Pembunuhan berencana dilakukan Ferdy Sambo bersama-sama dengan Ricard Eliezer Pudihang Lumiu atau Bharada E, Putri Candrawathi, Rick Rizalwibowo dan Kuat Ma'ruf. Pembunuhan dilakukan pada 8 Juli 2022 di rumah dinas Komplek Polri Duren Tiga No. 46, Jakarta Selatan.

 

Dalam surat dakwaannya, Ferdy Sambo yang memakai sarung tangan hitam disebutkan menembak satu kali Brigadir J yang tergeletak di dekat tangga depan kamar mandi rumah dinasnya di Kompleks Polri Duren Tiga, Jakarta Selatan, dalam keadaan tertelungkup masih bergerak-gerak kesakitan hingga akhirnya korban meninggal dunia.

Total kini ada empat tersangka, yaitu Bharada Richard Eliezer Pudihang Lumiu alias Bharada E yang diketahui sebagai penembak langsung Brigadir J, Bripka RR alias Ricky Rizal, KM yang merupakan sopir istri Ferdy Sambo, dan mantan Kadiv Propam Irjen Ferdy Sambo sendiri.
 

Pelaksanaan Proses sidang kasus Ferdy Sambo masih terus berjalan hingga saat ini.

writer by: Admin

Read More

MK Dengarkan Laporan Hasil PSU Pilkada Mamberamo Raya

Kuasa hukum Pihak Terkait Ridwan Syaidi Tarigan memberikan keterangan pada sidang lanjutan perkara Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan Kepala Daerah Kabupaten Mamberamo Raya, Selasa (19/4) di Ruang Sidang MK. Foto Humas/Ifa.

Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) menggelar sidang lanjutan perkara Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan Kepala Daerah (PHP Kada) Kabupaten Mamberamo Raya, Selasa (19/4) untuk laporan hasil pemungutan suara ulang (PSU) di 10 TPS.

KPUD Mamberamo Raya melalui kuasa hukumnya Pieter Ell melaporkan, pada pemungutan suara ulang tersebut kandidat Nomor Urut 1 memperoleh 0 suara dan kandidat Nomor Urut 2  memperoleh 10 suara. Sedangkan kandidat Nomor Urut 3 memperoleh suara sebanyak 1.322 suara.

Terhadap hasil pemungutan suara ulang tersebut, kuasa hukum Pihak Terkait Ridwan Syaidi Tarigan mempersoalkan keterlibatan 20 personil Brimob. Ridwan menganggap keberadaan personil Brimob tersebut telah mengintervensi proses PSU dengan mempengaruhi agar pemilih mencoblos Pasangan No Urut 2.

“Pada tanggal 14 Maret pasangan calon kami sudah memberi tahu bahwa ada 20 orang oknum yang tanpa perintah tugas berada di lokasi Mamberamo Raya Kampung Fona,” ujar Ridwan dalam persidangan. 

Ridwan menyatakan anggota Brimob tersebut melakukan intimidasi pada Kepala Kampung Fona dengan menawarkan agar memilih kandidat no 2 dengan iming-iming Rp 500 ribu. Selain itu warga juga dincam akan ditembak jika tak memilih kandidat no 2.

Menanggapi tudingan ini, Kuasa Hukum Pemohon Utomo Karim menganggap kehadiran Brimob telah mendapat perintah dari pimpinan kepolisian. “Sudah ada surat ijin dikeluarkan oleh  Kepala Satuan Brimob Polda Papua Kombes Mathius Fakhiri. Yaitu Surat Perintah Nomor Sprin/129/III/2016,” kata dia. Selain itu, lanjut Utomo, sesuai Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi pelaksanaan PSU juga harus melibatkan Polda untuk bisa membantu keamanan.

Menengahi perdebatan, Hakim Konstitusi I Dewa Gede Palguna yang memimpin persidangan menengahi polemik keterlibatan personil Briom tersebut. menjelaskan akan menilai ini dalam Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim (RPH). Meskipun idealnya pihak Polda seharusnya dapat hadir untuk memberikan keterangan di depan hakim.  

Sebelumnya, MK memutus pemungutan suara ulang pemilihan kepala daerah (Pilkada) pada 10 TPS di Kabupaten Mamberamo Raya, Provinsi Papua. Mahkamah menilai di 10 TPS itu telah terjadi pelanggaran yang mempengaruhi perolehan suara pemohon pasangan Demianus Kyeuw Kyeuw-Adiryanus Manemi (2) yang selisihnya hanya 149 suara dengan pasangan pemenang, Dorinus Dasinafa-Yakobus Britai (3).

“Memerintahkan KPU Kabupaten Mamberamo Raya melaksanakan PSU Pemilihan Bupati dan Wakil Bupati Mamberamo Raya Tahun 2015 di 10 TPS dalam jangka waktu paling lama 30 hari kerja sejak putusan ini diucapkan,” ujar Ketua Majelis MK Arief Hidayat saat membacakan putusan No. 24/PHP.BUP-XI/V/2016 di ruang sidang MK, Senin (22/2) silam. (Arief Rian S.)

sumber dari Mahkamah Konstitusi : http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=web.Berita&id=13057#.VxotSdR96M8

Read More

MK Tafsirkan Makna ‘Segera’ dalam KUHAP

Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP tidak memenuhi asas kepastian hukum yang adil.

Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) mengabulkan sebagian uji materi Pasal 18 ayat (3) UU No. 8 Tahun 1981  tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) yang dimohonkan Hendry Batoarung Ma’dika. Dalam putusannya, MK memberi tafsir kata ‘segera’ dalam Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP. Menurut MK, lema ‘segera’ harus dimaknai selama 7 hari. Ini artinya, surat tembusan pemberitahuan penangkapan harus sudah diberikan kepada keluarganya dalam jangka waktu selama 7 hari.

“Frasa ‘segera’ dalam Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat sepanjang tidak dimaknai ‘segera dan tidak lebih dari 7 (tujuh) hari’,” tutur Ketua Majelis MK, Hamdan Zoelva saat membacakan putusan bernomor 3/PUU-XI/2013 di ruang sidang MK, Kamis (30/1).

Sebelumnya, pemohon yang merupakan suami dari seorang yang diduga sebagai pengedar narkoba lewat kuasa hukumnya – yang saat sidang pembacaan tidak hadir - meminta MK memaknai kata ‘segera’ dalam Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP. Pemohon beralasan ketiadaan makna kata ‘segera’ dalam KUHAP justru tidak menjamin kepastian hukum.

Pemohon mencontohkan penerapan kata ‘segera’ ada yang dilakukan beberapa jam setelah penangkapan, ada yang diterapkan satu hari, dua hari, hingga satu minggu setelah penangkapan dilakukan. Menurut Duin Palungkun, pengacara pemohon, kata ‘segera’ telah dimaknai selama 24 hari setelah penangkapan istrinya. Keluarga pemohon tidak pernah diberi kesempatan untuk mengetahui secara sah tentang tindak pidana apa yang disangkakan terhadap istrinya.

Mahkamah beralasan frasa ‘segera’ dalam Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP dapat diartikan  setelah tersangka ditangkap, pemberitahuan kepada keluarga tersangka harus disampaikan dalam waktu singkat agar tersangka segera mendapat hak-haknya. Apabila pemberitahuan itu tak segera disampaikan berpotensi menimbulkan pelanggaran hak tersangka karena keberadaan dan status hukum tidak segera diketahui keluarganya.

Menurut Mahkamah ketiadaan rumusan pasti mengenai lamanya waktu kata ‘segera’ dalam pasal itu dapat menyebabkan pihak penyidik menafsirkan berbeda-beda dalam setiap kasus yang ditangani. Perbedaan semacam itu dapat menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum dan berpotensi menimbulkan ketidakadilan oleh pihak penyidik.

“Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP tidak memenuhi asas kepastian hukum yang adil karena dalam pelaksanaan menimbulkan penafsiran yang berbeda. Penafsiran yang berbeda ini dapat menimbulkan perlakuan diskriminatif terhadap tersangka, sehingga menurut Mahkamah, dalil permohonan Pemohon beralasan menurut hukum,” kata Hakim Konstitusi Maria Farida Indrati saat membacakan pertimbangan hukumnya.

Namun, apabila Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat justru dapat menghilangkan kewajiban penyidik menyampaikan salinan surat perintah penangkapan itu yang menimbulkan pelanggaran terhadap asas perlindungan hukum dan kepastian hukum. Karena itu, demi kepastian hukum yang adil, Mahkamah perlu menafsirkan mengenai frasa ‘segera’ pada Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP.

Dalam hal ini, waktu 7 (tujuh) hari merupakan tenggat waktu yang patut untuk menyampaikan salinan surat perintah penahanan tersebut. Karenanya, sesuai dengan asas kepatutan dan kepastian hukum, frasa ‘segera’ dalam rumusan Pasal 18 ayat (3) KUHAP yang menyatakan, “Tembusan surat perintah penangkapan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) harus diberikan kepada keluarganya segera setelah penangkapan dilakukan.” haruslah dinyatakan bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 sepanjang tidak dimaknai “segera dan tidak lebih dari 7 (tujuh) hari.” 

Untuk diketahui, Irmania Bachtiar alias Mama Nio merupakan istri dari pemohon Hendry Batoarung Ma'dika alias Papa Nio ditangkap oleh Kepolisian Resort Tana Toraja pada 28 September 2012 karena diduga mengedarkan narkoba. Pada saat penggeledahan, polisi menemukan satu plastik kosong bekas menyimpan sabu-sabu.

Pihak keluarga baru mengetahui Mama Nio ditetapkan menjadi tersangka dan telah ditahan pada 22 Oktober 2012 (24 hari setelah ditangkap). Dengan alasan keterlambatan pemberitahuan itulah upaya praperadilan yang diajukan oleh keluarga tersangka kemudian ditolak oleh Pengadilan Negeri Makale, Sulawesi Selatan.

Read More

Kartu Kredit Dominasi Pengaduan Sistem Pembayaran di BI

Mulai dari masalah bunga, hingga penagihan oleh debt collector.

Bank Indonesia (BI) mencatat, sejak Agustus 2013 sampai Januari 2014, pengaduan masyarakat terkait sistem pembayaran didominasi oleh kartu kredit. Dari 71 pengaduan yang masuk ke BI, sekitar 86 persen merupakan pengaduan terkait kartu kredit.

“Sebanyak 86 persen dari 71 pengaduan sepanjang Agustus 2013 sampai Januari 2014 adalah pengaduan terkait dengan kartu kredit,” kata Direktur eksekutif Departemen Kebijakan dan Pengawasan Sistem Pembayaran BI Rosmaya Hadi di Jakarta, Jumat (21/2).

Menurutnya, sebagian besar pengaduan kartu kredit ini terkait perhitungan besaran suku bunga, yang mana bunga kartu kredit terus berbunga apabila iurannya belum dibayar oleh nasabah. Padahal, bunga yang belum terbayar tidak boleh diikutkan di perhitungan bulan selanjutnya.

“Bunga kartu kredit sebetulnya tidak boleh bunga berbunga,” tutur Rosmaya.

Bukan hanya terkait masalah bunga, lanjut Rosmaya, persoalan lain di kartu kredit menyangkut penagih utang (debt collector). Menurutnya, banyak nasabah yang mempermasalahkan perilaku penagih utang yang kerap tak sopan saat menagih.Padahal, BI telah menerbitkan aturan yang melarang penagihan utang dilakukan di atas jam delapan malam.

Untuk menanggapi laporan dan pengaduan masyarakat tersebut, BI telah melakukan sejumlah langkah. Misalnya, usai menerima laporan nasabah, BI akan mengonfirmasi laporan tersebut kepada pihak atau bank yang menjadi terlapor. “Bank yang bersangkutan nanti memberikan tanggapan, kemudian kami analisis,” katanya.

Jika diperlukan, lanjut Rosmaya, BI akan mempertemukan nasabah dengan bank tersebut. Menurutnya, BI telah beberapa kali memfasilitasi pertemuan antara nasabah dengan bank terkait laporan yang disampaikan.

Rosmaya mengatakan, selain pengaduan terkait kartu kredit, BI menerima pengaduan mengenai sistem pembayaran yang berkaitan dengan ATM dan transfer dana. Pengaduan terkait Anjungan Tunai Mandiri (ATM) dan transfer dana masing-masing sebesar empat persen.

Untuk pengaduan terkait pedagang valuta asing dan mengenai scripless securities settlement system (BI-SSSS), masing-masing sebanyak dua persen. Sedangkan pengaduan masyarakat terkait dengan Sistem Kliring Nasional BI (SKNBI) adalah satu persen dan pengaduan lainnya sebesar satu persen.

Sedangkan permintaan informasi yang masuk ke BI sejak Agustus 2013 hingga Januari 2014 sebanyak 480 layanan. Dari jumlah itu, mayoritas permintaan informasi masyarakat adalah mengenai penyediaan dan penyetoran uang yang mencapai 53 persen. Untuk permintaan informasi terkait uang elektronik sebanyak 41 persen.

Untuk memfasilitasi pengaduan masyarakat yang masuk ke BI, Deputi Gubernur BI Ronald Waas mengatakan, bank sentral telah membentuk divisi khusus untuk melindungi konsumen terkait sistem pembayaran. Deputi Gubernur BI Ronald Waas mengatakan, divisi ini bertugas untuk memberikan edukasi, konsultasi dan fasilitasi bagi konsumen yang memanfaatkan jasa sistem pembayaran.

Sejumlah instrumen yang masuk dalam jasa sistem pembayaran adalah pemindahan atau penarikan dana, kegiatan transfer dana, alat pembayaran menggunakan kartu (APMK) termasuk kartu kredit dan kartu ATM/debet, uang elektronik serta penyediaan atau penyetoran uang rupiah. Perlindungan konsumen bagi pengguna jasa sistem pembayaran ini telah tertuang dalam aturan yang baru diterbitkan BI.

“Perlindungan konsumen ini tertuang dalam Peraturan Bank Indonesia (PBI) Nomor 16/1/PBI/2014 tanggal 21 Januari 2014 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen Pengguna Jasa Sistem Pembayaran,” tutup Ronald.

Read More

Bagaimana Memilih dan Bekerjasama dengan seorang Pengacara

Walaupun Anda mungkin tidak membutuhkan nasehat hukum secara teratur, barangkali ada baiknya kalau seorang pengacara tersedia jika dibutuhkan oleh perusahaan. Dengan demikian, kalau Anda membutuhkan nasehat dan bantuan hukum, Anda akan bekerjasama dengan orang yang menyenangkan Anda, dan yang mengerti kebutuhan bisnis Anda.

Kapan Anda akan membutuhkan nasehat hukum? Disini adalah beberapa situasi tertentu:

• Bilamana Anda memutuskan menjadi badan hokum - dan perlu menyiapkan seluruh dokumen yang penting
• Bilamana Anda sedang coba menulis atau memahami isi kontrak yang rumit
• Bilamana Anda diancam perkara hukum
• Bilamana Anda membutuhkan bantuan penagihan hutang
• Bilamana Anda membutuhkan informasi mengenai segala peraturan yang menyinggung bisnis Anda, dan bantuan tentang bagaimana memenuhi mereka

Pekerjakanlah seorang pengacara yang memahami bisnis Anda

Pastikan bahwa pengacara Anda (dan penasehat ahli lainnya) memahami kebutuhan spesifik dari bisnis Anda. Bilamana mengadakan wawancara untuk memilih seorang pengacara, tanyakan apakah dia sebelumnya pernah bekerja di perusahaan yang serupa dengan milik Anda - Anda tidak ingin membayar untuk masa belajar. Penahkah perusahaan tersebut bekerja dengan untuk bisnis kecil sebelumnya? Dalam jenis apa? Dan jika industri Anda mempunyai pengaturan khusus atau persyaratan hukum lainnya, Anda mungkin menginginkan seorang pengacara yang sudah akrab dengan mereka.

Gunakan rujukan

Rujukan merupakan cara terbaik untuk menemukan jasa apa saja yang mungkin Anda butuhkan, tanpa kecuali seorang pengacara. Bicaralah dengan para pemilik bisnis kecil lainnya, dan dengan bankir, akuntan, atau penasehat lain yang dapat dipercaya. Anda juga dapat mencari informasi dari asosiasi pengacara lokal Anda, walaupun tidak semua dari mereka mampu memeriksa kekhususan pengalaman seorang pengacara. Rujukan asosiasi pengacara tentu saja akan menjamin bahwa seorang pengacara telah lulus ujian pengacara.

Ketahui biaya Anda sebelum Anda mendapatkan tagihan

Upah seorang pengacara bervariasi, bergantung pada lokasi praktek, pengalaman pengacara, keahlian khusus, dan apakah Anda berhubungan dengan perusahaan besar atau kantor pengacara kecil.

Ketahuilah bagaimana pengacara menetapkan biayanya. Pada saat Anda minta bantuan, apakah Anda dibebani biaya untuk waktu menelepon? Jika demikian, bagaimana biaya tersebut dihitung? Apakah ada tarip berlainan tergantung siapa yang melayani rekening Anda – seorang pengacara, seorang periset, seorang asisten pengacara?

Dan juga, sebelumnya tanyakan apakah akan ada biaya untuk konsultasi awal.

Rundingkan metode penagihan yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan Anda

Kebanyakan orang dari bisnis kecil membayar pengacara kalau mereka membutuhkan mereka - jika seorang pengacara bekerja selama dua jam, Anda membayar untuk jangka waktu itu. Jika Anda mempunyai hubungan berkelanjutan dengan pengacara Anda, Anda mungkin akan dikirimi rekening tagihan sebulan sekali untuk pemberian jasa.

Opsi lainnya adalah dengan membayar uang panjar kepada pengacara, tetapi ini jarang dijumpai pada bisnis kecil. Uang panjar berarti bahwa Anda membayar pengacara agar siap melakukan sejumlah kewajiban yang telah disepakati untuk perusahaan Anda atas dasar tugas yang berkelanjutan. Jika Anda menghadapi proses pengadilan yang berat, atau sebuah proyek khusus, biaya tambahan dapat dirundingkan.

Terkadang Anda bisa memperoleh rencana hukum yang dibayar dimuka dimana Anda memperoleh beragam pelayanan untuk upah tahunan yang tetap.

Ada beberapa cara untuk menghemat uang untuk tagihan hukum Anda. Disini ada beberapa saran:

Berlakulah teratur dengan semua pertemuan dengan pengacara Anda karena jam terus berdetak. Buatlah sendiri panggilan telepon yang tidak ada hubungannya dengan hukum. Lakukanlah sendiri penelitian dasar. Siapkan kontrak dan tunjukkan kepada pengacara Anda daripada meminta mereka untuk menyiapkannya.

Read More

IPW Minta KPK Tindak Lanjuti Laporan MABBAK

ilustrasi Gedung KPK (Foto:Okezone)

JAKARTA - Ketua Presidium Indonesia Police Watch (IPW) Neta S Pane meminta Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) segera menindaklanjuti laporan dugaan ketidakwajaran harta yang dimiliki Kapolda Bangka Belitung Brigjen Pol Budi Hartono Untung, yang dilaporkan LSM Masyarakat Perantau Asal Bangka Belitung Anti Korupsi Pejabat Bangka Belitung (Babel) (MABBAK) ke KPK Senin 10 Februari 2014.

“KPK harus serius menangani laporan tersebut,” ujar Neta saat dihubungi  di Jakarta, Kamis (13/2/2014).

Ia juga meminta Kapolri Jenderal Sutarman mencermati adanya ketidakwajaran harta yang dimiliki Budi Hartono Untung. “Mabes Polri juga harus mencermati laporan MABBAK itu,” tambahnya.

Kendati demikian, jika nantinya Kapolda Babel tersebut tidak bersalah Mabes Polri harus mengklarifikasinya ke masyarakat. “Tapi jika tidak ditemukan dan Kapolda Babel benar-benar bersih, Mabes Polri perlu mengklarifikasinya ke publik," pintannya.

Sementara itu, Ketua Komisi III Ketua Komisi III DPR Pieter C Zulkiflie meminta semua pihak  agar mengedapankan azas praduga tak bersalah. Karena harta kekayaan Kapolda Babel sudah ada aturan dan mekanisme tersendiri untuk menganalisanya.

"Perlu saya ingatkan pada semua pihak untuk bersikap bijak memahami persoalan tersebut tanpa menghakimi seseorang sebelum ditemukan bukti-bukti pendukung yang dapat dijadikan indikator bahwa benar telah terjadi perbuatan pidana," tuturnya.

Masyarakat saat ini sudah semakin cerdas dalam menilai persoalaan. "Karena hal tersebut akan membuat masyarakat semakin cerdas memahami pengetahuan dan pembelajaran hukum," pungkasnya. (ydh)

sumber :http://news.okezone.com/read/2014/02/13/339/940538/ipw-minta-kpk-tindak-lanjuti-laporan-mabbak

Read More

48 Perusahaan Belum Membayar THR Buruh

Konfederasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia (KSPI) mengungkapkan hingga H-1 menjelang lebaran masih ada 48 perusahaan yang belum membayar tunjangan hari raya (THR) karyawannya.

Presiden Konfederasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia Said Iqbal menjelaskan, perusahaan yang melummembayar THR karyawan sebagian besar berada di Jawa Timur.

"Dari data posko pengaduan THR KSPI di Jawa timur ada 48 perusahaan yang belum membayar THR buruh," kata Said kepada Kompas.com di Jakarta, Rabu (7/8/2013).

Said berpendapat bahwa posko pengaduan THR dari Kementerian Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi dan Dinas Tenaga Kerja tidak efektif dan justru hanya basa basi saja. Sebab, ternyata posko tersebut tidak mampu mendesak perusahaan untuk segera membayarkan THR karyawannya. 

Untuk itu, KSPI mendesak pemerintah mengubah Peraturan Menteri Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi Nomor 4 tahun 1994 tentang pemberian THR, agar ditingkatkan menjadi Peraturan Presiden atau Peraturan Pemerintah. 

Organisasi itu sekaligus menyatakan dengan tegas pemberian sanksi kepada perusahaan yang tidak membayar THR karyawan. Keinginan KSPI, isi dari regulasi tersebut adalah salah satu pasalnya harus menyatakan pemberian sanksi pidana bagi pengusaha yang tidak membayar THR seperti pengusaha yang tidak membayar upah minimum, dikenakan pidana satu tahun penjara.

"Alasan maraknya pengusaha tidak bayar THR seperti kasus 2.500 buruh di beberapa perusahaan karena pengusaha tidak wajib bayar THR karena tidak ada sangsi bila tidak bayar," tambahnya.

Di sisi lain, pengusaha membuat akal-akalan dengan cara memutus kontrak kerja buruh sebelum H-7 dan pengusaha yang sedang berselisih dengan buruh atau konflik maka THR buruh tidak dibayarkan.

"Maka dari itu KSPI mendesak Menakertrans mencabut atau tidak memperpanjang izin-izin yang berhubungan dengan ketenagakerjaan terhadap pengusaha yang tidak bayar THR (Izin jam kerja malam, Izin pengunaan tenaga kerja asing, Izin pengunaan pekerja kontrak dll)," jelasnya.

Editor : Bambang Priyo Jatmiko

sumber : http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/2013/08/07/0839505/48.Perusahaan.Belum.Membayar.THR.Karyawan

Read More