MIMBAR YUSTITIA : Jurnal Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia

Legal Protection For Patients Who Are Harmful Due To Medical Actions In The Installation Of Braces Without Medical Records (Study Decision Number 557/PK/PDT/2017)

2024-06-22T08:54:45+00:00

Doctors in carrying out medical practice are required to keep medical records which are regulated in the Medical Practice Law. In dentistry, records play a very important role, mistakes made by doctors and dentists by not making medical records are a form of unlawful action. This research aims to examine the form of legal protection for patients if they are harmed due to the actions of a dentist who in practice does not keep medical records and to see how responsible the doctor is for these actions. The method used in this research is normative juridical with a statutory approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. This research discusses forms of legal protection which consist of internal and external forms of legal protection, then discusses the responsibilities of medical personnel based on the absolute prin. The legal protection provided to patients who are harmed by the installation of braces without medical records consists of internal and external legal protection. The principle of absolute responsibility is used basically because of the losses experienced by patients due to the negligence of medical personnel or doctors, which is called negligence in this case as a health service provider, so that Article 60 (2) of the Consumer Protection Law is imposed. In addition, the Judge's Law consideration (ratio decidendi) in Decision Number 557/Pk/Pdt/2017 is clearly very wrong and not based on law because in this case the complainant has attached evidence of disciplinary sanctions.ciple and the principle of error and discusses the legal considerations of judges.

Surat Pernyataan Penguasaan Fisik Bidang Tanah (SPPFBT) Sebagai Agunan Kredit Bank Atas Tanah Yang Belum Bersertifikat (Studi Putusan Nomor: 6/PDT.G.S/2021/PN PGA)

2024-06-30T09:16:19+00:00

Abstract: A land title certificate is legal and concrete evidence of ownership and control of land. Its permanent nature and high value make land a stable and safe collateral for banks to disburse credit. However, this is an obstacle for land owners who do not yet have a certificate for the land they own and control, have complete proof of ownership of the land or rights, or do not even have proof of ownership. In the Pagar Alam District Court Decision Numbers: 6/Pdt.G.S/2021/PN Pga Using collateral in the form of land and buildings with proof of ownership SPPFBT No. 593/06/MS.Dp.U/2018. This obstacle makes it an option for that land that does not have a land title certificate as stated in Article 4 UUHT, to make an Ownership Statement of Land Parcel (SPPFBT) as an option for the community to use as collateral for bank credit. However, SPPFBT is a statement letter made unilaterally by the applicant that contains juridical data related to land control based on good faith, the authority is not as perfect as an authentic deed. Bearing in mind that, if there is bad credit in the credit agreement, the funds can be auctioned to fulfill the rights and obligations of the credit agreement between the debtor and creditor. In an implementation, banks must be careful in assessing the character, capabilities, capital, collateral, and business prospect funds of debtors, as well as formulating regulations regarding the use of SPPFBT as bank collateral for uncertified land to protect the rights and obligations of the Bank and credit applicants. Clearly, to provide legal certainty and protection.

Keywords: SPPFBT, Uncertificated, Collateral, Bad Credit, KPKNL.

Abstrak: Sertifikat hak atas tanah merupakan bukti yang sah, konkret atas kepemilikan dan penguasaan atas tanah. Namun, merupakan kendala bagi pemilik tanah yang belum memiliki sertifikat atas tanah yang dimiliki dan dikuasainya, kepemilikan bukti tanah atau alas hak secara lengkap bahkan sama sekali tidak memiliki bukti kepemilikan. Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Pagar Alam Nomor: 6/Pdt.G.S/2021/PN Pga menggunakan agunan berupa tanah dan/atau bangunan dengan bukti kepemilikan SPPFBT Nomor: 593/06/MS.Dp.U/2018. Hal tersebut menjadikan sebuah opsi bahwasanya tanah yang tidak memiliki sertifikat sebagaimana disebutkan dalam Pasal 4 UUHT, dapat menjadikan Surat Pernyataan Penguasaan Fisik Bidang (SPPFBT) sebagai opsi bagi masyarakat sebagai agunan kredit bank. Namun, SPPFBT merupakan surat pernyataan yang dibuat sepihak oleh pemohon berisikan data yuridis terkait penguasaan tanah berdasarkan itikad baik, sehingga kekuatannya tidak sesempurna akta autentik. Mengingat bahwa, apabila terdapat kredit macet dalam perjanjian kredit, agunan tersebut dapat dilakukan lelang guna memenuhi hak dan kewajiban atas perjanjian kredit antara debitur dan kreditur. Sehingga, dalam pelaksanaannya bank haruslah seksama menilai terhadap watak, kemampuan, modal, agunan, dana prospek usaha dari debitur, pula perumusan pengaturan mengenai penggunaan SPPFBT sebagai agunan bank atas tanah yang belum bersertifikat untuk melindungi hak dan kewajiban Bank dan Pemohon kredit haruslah jelas, guna upaya memberikan kepastian dan perlindungan hukum.

Kata Kunci: SPPFBT, Agunan, Tanah Tidak Bersertifikat, Kredit Macet, KPKNL.

Responsibility of the Regional Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta for the Granting of Building Permits on National Vital Objects (Dispute Case of Residents VS PT. Pertamina (Persero) Located in Plumpang)

2024-06-30T15:32:37+00:00

Land utilization at this time encounters many problems due to the lack of public awareness regarding the importance of ownership of land rights to the attitude of people who are indifferent to their surroundings. This causes conflicts until disputes arise over the utilization of state land by the community. The purpose of this study is to determine the responsibility of the Special Capital Region of the Jakarta Government and the settlement of disputes over the issuance of building permits on land owned by PT Pertamina (Persero) located in Plumpang. The author uses normative juridical research using books, journals, and expert opinions as secondary data sources. This research uses 3 (three) main approaches, namely the statute approach, the conceptual approach, and the case approach. The results of the study are that the Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta is responsible for all risks that may arise as a result of the issuance of IMB for residents around the PT Pertamina Depot in Plumpang as a consequence of the rule of law and democracy. In addition to dispute resolution through the general judicial channel, there are other ways with non-litigation channels or out-of-court channels. Responsibility consists of 2 (two) types, namely political responsibility (responsibility) and legal responsibility (liability). Dispute resolution can be carried out through the litigation route, namely by civil lawsuit and/or state administrative lawsuit and non-litigation route with alternative dispute resolution.

Tanggung Gugat Direksi Terhadap Audit Laporan Keuangan PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk Ditinjau Melalui Doktrin Fiduciary Duty

2024-06-30T16:37:25+00:00

Abstract: Article 92 paragraph (1) of the Limited Liability Company Law states that the board of directors accepts the mandate of the company to take care of the interests of the company, as well as its duties and functions in running the company (fiduciary duty). The responsibility of the board of directors in managing the company can have consequences if the board of Directors has bad faith in carrying out its obligations. The study was conducted using normative juridical methods to find the liability of the board of directors to audit the Financial Statements of Limited Liability Companies. Such as the case of the Directors of PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk who were negligent and bad faith in making financial statements in 2018. The implementation of PSAK 23 in the presentation of the financial statements for the 2018 financial year has been based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, but the work between PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk and PT Mahata Aero Teknologi has not been recognized as revenue because it can cause confusion and mislead the company. Based on Article 97 paragraph (3) and (4) of the Limited Liability Company Law, each member of the board of directors bears full responsibility personally and/or jointly and severally for the losses of the company if the person concerned is guilty or negligent in carrying out his duties. Legal implications in the event that the financial statements provided are incorrect and / or misleading, members of the Board of Directors and members of the Board of Commissioners are jointly and severally responsible for the injured party.

Keywords: Responsibilities; Directors; Financial Statements.