Acta Law Journal (E-ISSN: 2964-2264) is a peer-reviewed journal published since 2022 by Magister Kenotariatan (Master of Notarial Law), Faculty of Law, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan. Acta Law Journal is published twice a year in June and December. Acta Law Journal publishes works that cover conceptual papers and research findings of legal academics and practitioners. Articles published in Acta Law Journal does not only focus on issues related to Notarial studies, but also general law studies. As a national journal, Acta Law Journal accepts contributions of writings nationally on topics related to various fields of law. In order to maintain the quality of articles to be published by Acta Law Journal, a number of law professors and legal experts have been appointed as editorial boards. Every article published is confirmed to have been through the review stage in accordance with the standards that apply to a scientific journal. The reviewers are selected from legal experts in accordance with their scientific fields. Acta Law Journal (E-ISSN: 2964-2264) is a peer-reviewed journal published twice a year (June and December) by the Master of Notarial Law program at Universitas Sumatera Utara. It covers notarial and general law studies, publishing research and conceptual papers by legal academics and practitioners. Articles undergo a rigorous review process by legal experts to ensure quality. Journal title Acta Law Journal Subjects Notarial Law, General Law Studies Language English, Indonesia E-ISSN 2964-2264 Frequency 2 issues per year (June and December) DOI 10.32734 - by Crossref OAI https://talenta.usu.ac.id/ALJ/oai Editor-in-chief Dr. Detania Sukarja, S.H., LL.M. Publisher TALENTA Publisher, Universitas Sumatera Utara Cititation Analysis Google Scholars Acta Law Journal has been indexed by: In Collaboration With:
Talenta Publisher, Universitas Sumatera Utara
Efektivitas Penerapan Perubahan Perilaku Oleh Kppu Terhadap Penyalahgunaan Posisi Dominan Dalam Penentuan Layanan Kurir Di Platform Shopee
Market dominance practices, particularly discriminatory conduct, are prohibited under Article 19 letter d of Law No. 5 of 1999, while the abuse of dominant position is prohibited under Article 25 of the same law. In addressing such violations, the Indonesia Competition Commission (KPPU) issued KPPU Regulation No. 2 of 2023 as a legal framework aimed at resolving business competition disputes more effectively. This study focuses on KPPU Case Decision No. 04/KPPU-I/2024, involving PT Shopee International Indonesia and PT Nusantara Ekspres Kilat, in relation to alleged discriminatory conduct through algorithmic arrangements prioritizing certain delivery service providers. The method employed in this research and writing is normative legal research with a descriptive approach. The data used comprises primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection was carried out through literature review and analyzed using qualitative normative data analysis techniques. The conclusion shows that the reported parties successfully implemented their commitments to behavioral change through a Behavioral Change Integrity Pact, in accordance with the mechanisms outlined in KPPU Regulation No. 2 of 2023. This success marks the first case to have effectively applied the mechanism under the new regulation, demonstrating its effectiveness in encouraging businesses to compete fairly and in accordance with prevailing regulations. It is recommended that KPPU take a more proactive role in disseminating information and educating the Indonesian E-Commerce Association. Furthermore, KPPU must remain consistent in monitoring the implementation of the Behavioral Change Integrity Pact, including regular oversight and evaluation of the Compliance Programs undertaken by the reported parties. These measures aim to enhance business actors understanding and compliance in resolving alleged competition law violations effectively, thereby promoting healthier competition in Indonesia’s e-commerce sector. Kegiatan penguasaan pasar khususnya praktik diskriminasi dilarang dalam Pasal 19 huruf d UU No. 5/1999 dan penyalahgunaan posisi dominan dilarang dalam Pasal 25 UU No. 5/1999. Untuk mengatasi pelanggaran tersebut, KPPU menerbitkan Peraturan KPPU No. 2 Tahun 2023 sebagai kerangka hukum untuk menyelesaikan sengketa persaingan usaha secara lebih efektif. Penelitian ini berfokus pada Penetapan Perkara KPPU No. 04/KPPU-I/2024, yang melibatkan PT Shopee International Indonesia dan PT Nusantara Ekspres Kilat terkait dugaan diskriminasi dalam pengaturan algoritma untuk memprioritaskan layanan jasa pengiriman tertentu. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian dan penulisan skripsi ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif, yang bersifat deskriptif. Data terdiri dari bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan dan dianalisis dengan metode analisis data normatif kualitatif. Kesimpulan skripsi menunjukkan bahwa para terlapor berhasil melaksanakan komitmen perubahan perilaku melalui Pakta Integritas Perubahan Perilaku sesuai dengan mekanisme yang diatur dalam Peraturan KPPU No. 2 Tahun 2023. Keberhasilan ini menjadi kasus pertama yang berhasil menerapkan mekanisme tersebut berdasarkan peraturan terbaru, sekaligus membuktikan efektivitasnya dalam mendorong pelaku usaha untuk bersaing secara sehat dan sesuai regulasi. Disarankan agar KPPU perlu lebih aktif dalam melakukan sosialisasi dan edukasi kepada Asosiasi E-Commerce Indonesia serta harus konsisten dalam mengawasi pelaksanaan Pakta Integritas Perubahan Perilaku, termasuk memantau dan mengevaluasi Program Kepatuhan yang diikuti oleh para Terlapor secara berkala. Langkah ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan pemahaman dan kepatuhan para pelaku usaha dalam menyelesaikan dugaan pelanggaran persaingan usaha secara efektif, sehingga dapat mendorong persaingan usaha yang lebih sehat di sektor e-commerce di Indonesia.
Copyright (c) 2025 Kathrin Hutapea https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Terhadap Bukti Elektronik: Antara Eksistensi, Hambatan Penggunaan, dan Urgensi Pengaturannya Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana
The rapid development of technology has resulted in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) not being able to accommodate criminal acts related to technology. In response to these conditions, the government issued Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions which introduced electronic evidence as legal evidence. This recognition is also found in other special laws. However, scattered confessions have created uncertainty regarding the legal position of electronic evidence in the criminal justice system. As a result, the use of electronic evidence is less than optimal in the process of proving and resolving criminal cases. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the existence of electronic evidence as a valid form of evidence in Indonesia, then to identify obstacles to the use of electronic evidence in criminal justice in Indonesia and examine the urgency of regulating electronic evidence as a criminal law policy in criminal justice in Indonesia. The research method in this journal is normative legal research with a statutory regulation approach, comparative approach, case approach and historical approach.. The author uses secondary data sources consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. Data collection techniques were carried out through literature study, then analyzed qualitatively. This research examines the position of electronic evidence in various special laws and its application in court decisions, then identifies obstacles related to procedures, understanding of law enforcement officials, and limited infrastructure, as well as explaining the urgency of ratifying the draft criminal procedure code (RKUHAP) to strengthen the legal basis for electronic evidence. The results of this research show that electronic evidence needs to be regulated in Indonesian criminal procedural law through updating the Criminal Procedure Code in order to provide legal certainty and facilitate the use of electronic evidence in Indonesian criminal procedural law.
Copyright (c) 2025 gebby cantika, Edi Yunara, Wessy Trisna https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
Bagaimana Memperbaiki Undang-Undang Hak Cipta
Akhir-akhir ini, ruang publik dipenuhi perdebatan mengenai hak cipta, terutama dipicu oleh konflik antara para pencipta lagu yang tergabung dalam AKSI dan para penyanyi dari VISI. Perselisihan ini mencuat akibat sejumlah peristiwa sebelumnya, seperti polemik antara Rieka Roslan dan The Groove, Once dan Ahmad Dhani, hingga Posan Tobing dan Kotak. Uniknya, kedua belah pihak sama-sama menggunakan Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta sebagai dasar argumentasi, bahkan sering merujuk pada pasal yang sama dengan penafsiran berbeda. Fenomena ini menunjukkan adanya celah dalam konstruksi hukum hak cipta yang memungkinkan multitafsir. Artikel ini tidak bertujuan untuk membahas konflik personal, melainkan mengajak pembaca mengkaji akar masalahnya dan mendorong penyusunan revisi UU Hak Cipta secara komprehensif. Metode ROCCIPI (Rule, Opportunity, Capacity, Communication, Interest, Process, Ideology) ditawarkan sebagai pendekatan analitis dalam menyusun Naskah Akademik dan Rancangan Undang-Undang yang lebih inklusif dan adil. Artikel ini juga menekankan pentingnya peran akademisi hukum dalam proses legislasi, agar produk hukum tidak lagi dikendalikan oleh kepentingan sempit kelompok tertentu, tetapi benar-benar mencerminkan keadilan sosial bagi seluruh pemangku kepentingan.
Copyright (c) 2025 Agus Sardjono https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
Penyalahgunaan Kedudukan Komisaris Pt. Condato Grup Indonesia Sebagai Tindakan Ultra Vires (Studi Putusan Nomor 352/Pdt.G/2021/Pn Jkt.Pst)
Abstract The board of commissioners acts as a supervisor and advisor to the board of directors. Commissioners who use their position to provide advice to the board of directors so that the commissioners can take action on behalf of the company without any authority constitute an act of abuse of the commissioner's position to take ultra vires actions. As illustrated in the case of PT. Condato Grup Indonesia (PT.CGI) in Decision Number 352/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jkt.Pst, the commissioners of PT. CGI took action to transfer payments from consumers to their supplier companies and withhold PT. CGI's profits. This study uses a normative legal research method, with a statutory, case and conceptual approach, through a literature study data collection technique that collects data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials as analyzed using a qualitative analysis approach. Where several legal issues will be studied, namely how ultra vires actions carried out by commissioners can be categorized as abuse of position, how the judge's considerations in deciding whether the elements of an unlawful act in Decision Number 352/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jkt.Pst are fulfilled, and how the legal analysis is of the view that the commissioners of PT. CGI have committed ultra vires actions. This study concludes that commissioners who abuse their positions to influence the board of directors are ultra vires actions, as commissioners of PT. CGI have committed unlawful acts by abusing their authority to divert and withhold the company's profits ultra vires. In this case, ultra vires actions are the cause of the losses incurred by PT. CGI. Therefore, the commissioners are obliged to bear all losses, considering that the consequences of ultra vires actions are not binding on the company because they are null and void and trigger the application of the principle of piercing the corporate veil. Keywords: Position of Commissioner; Abuse; Ultra Vires. Abstrak Dewan komisaris berkedudukan sebagai pengawas dan pemberi nasihat kepada direksi. Komisaris yang menggunakan kedudukannya dalam pemberian nasihat kepada direksi agar komisaris dapat melakukan tindakan mewakili perseroan tanpa adanya kewenangan merupakan perbuatan penyalahgunaan kedudukan komisaris untuk melakukan tindakan ultra vires. Sebagaimana tergambar di permasalahan PT. Condato Grup Indonesia (PT.CGI) dalam Putusan Nomor 352/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jkt.Pst, komisaris PT. CGI melakukan tindakan pengalihan pembayaran dari konsumen ke perusahaan perusahaan supplier miliknya dan menahan keuntungan PT. CGI tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif, dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus dan konseptual, melalui teknik pengumpulan data studi pustaka yang mengumpulkan data berupa bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier sebagaimana untuk dianalisa secara pendekatan analisis kualitatif. Dimana akan dikajinya beberapa permasalahan hukum, yaitu bagaimana tindakan ultra vires yang dilakukan oleh komisaris dapat dikategorikan sebagai penyalahgunaan kedudukan, bagaimana pertimbangan hakim dalam memutuskan terpenuhinya unsur-unsur perbuatan melawan hukum dalam Putusan Nomor 352/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jkt.Pst, serta bagaimana analisa hukum yang berpandangan komisaris PT. CGI telah melakukan tindakan ultra vires. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa komisaris yang menyalahgunakan jabatannya untuk mempengaruhi direksi merupakan tindakan ultra vires, sebagaimana komisaris PT. CGI telah melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum dengan menyalahgunakan wewenangnya untuk mengalihkan dan menahan keuntungan perseroan secara ultra vires. Dalam kasus ini, tindakan ultra vires menjadi causa penyebab dari akibat kerugian PT. CGI timbul. Karena itu, komisaris wajib menanggung seluruh kerugian, mengingat akibat tindakan ultra vires tidak mengikat perseroan karena batal demi hukum dan memicu penerapan prinsip piercing the corporate veil. Kata Kunci: Kedudukan Komisaris; penyalahgunaan; Ultra Vires
Copyright (c) 2025 Dafi Muhammad, Mahmul Siregar, Robert https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
Analisis Pertimbangan Hukum Terkait Pelanggaran Hak Cipta “Urban Light” (Studi Putusan No 31/Pdt.Sus-Hak Cipta/2020/Pn.Niaga.Jkt.Pst)
This study aims to analyze the legal considerations related to copyright infringement in the case of "Urban Light," as presented in decision number 31/Pdt.Sus-Hak Cipta/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. This case involves a lawsuit filed by Nancy J. Rubins, the heir of the creator of the artwork "Urban Light," Chris Burden, against Defendant I, PT Pasti Makan Enak, and Defendant II, Henry Husada, who are accused of copying and modifying the artwork into the installation "Love Light" without permission.In this research, the author examines the legal framework of copyright in Indonesia, the legal considerations made by the judges in deciding the dispute, and the existing legal protection efforts. The findings indicate that Law No. 28 of 2014 provides automatic protection to creators for works that have been realized, encompassing both economic rights and moral rights. The judges considered the position of the Plaintiff as the legitimate heir, the substantial similarity between the two works, and the impact of the infringement on the creator's reputation.The court's decision to grant the Plaintiff's lawsuit emphasizes the importance of protecting copyright and the moral rights of creators, as well as providing a deterrent effect for violators. This study concludes that copyright protection in Indonesia needs to be enhanced through public education, improved law enforcement, and encouragement for the registration of creative works. Thus, it is hoped that a more conducive environment for the development of art and creativity, as well as respect for copyright, can be established in society.
Copyright (c) 2025 Bunga Raudah, Saidin, Fardila Sitepu https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0