This study examines the regulation of the authority of the State Intelligence Agency (Badan Intelijen Negara/BIN) within the framework of national security law based on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The analysis focuses on three principal issues: (1) the regulation of BIN’s authority in national security law under the 1945 Constitution; (2) the nature of intelligence institutions within the national legal system; and (3) the reformulation of the scope of BIN’s authority in the Constitution and its implementing regulations. The research employs a normative juridical method with historical, conceptual, statutory, comparative, philosophical, and case-based approaches. The findings reveal the existence of legal residue and sociological problems following the enactment of Law Number 17 of 2011 on State Intelligence, particularly concerning democratic guarantees, the protection of human rights, accountability, and the political neutrality of intelligence activities. In addition, the absence of clear regulation regarding an Intelligence Committee has resulted in weak coordination and oversight of state intelligence. Accordingly, this study proposes a model for reconstructing BIN’s authority through the clarification of limits on interception and financial flow examinations based on judicial authorization, the establishment of an Intelligence Committee as an independent coordination and oversight mechanism, and the strengthening of the principles of accountability and political neutrality of intelligence within the framework of a democratic rule-of-law state.
This study aims to examine the legal standing of concurrent creditors within the Indonesian bankruptcy regime and to formulate a reconstruction model of legal protection that is more equitable without undermining legal certainty and efficiency. Concurrent creditors have traditionally occupied the lowest tier of priority, subordinate to secured and preferred creditors, resulting in the frequent marginalization of their rights. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study finds that the normative configuration of Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK–PKPU) continues to place concurrent creditors in a weak and subordinated position. The practice of distributing bankruptcy estates further reveals the dominance of secured creditors, the expansion of preferential claims, limited transparency on the part of curators, and inconsistencies in judicial decisions, all of which undermine legal certainty and distributive justice for concurrent creditors. As a remedial measure, this study proposes a reconstruction of legal protection through the establishment of minimum rights for concurrent creditors, restrictions on secured creditors’ execution rights, reform of preferential mechanisms, enhancement of curator transparency, strengthening of judicial oversight, promotion of consistency in court decisions, and revision of the UUK–PKPU by incorporating best practices from bankruptcy systems in other jurisdictions. This reconstruction is expected to reinforce the position of concurrent creditors while simultaneously preserving legal certainty and efficiency within Indonesia’s bankruptcy law framework.
method by examining the prevailing regulatory framework under the UU ITE and its preventive mechanisms against cybercrime. The focus of this research lies in the tools and instruments employed in the implementation of these regulations, including cyber monitoring technologies and capacity building for law enforcement agencies. The findings indicate that although there has been a decline in certain types of cybercrime, such as phishing, incidents of data breaches have increased. Amendments to the provisions of the UU ITE have contributed to clearer legal protection and a more balanced approach between safeguarding freedom of expression and protecting individual rights. Despite advancements in the structure of law enforcement, significant challenges persist, particularly with regard to limited regional capacity, uneven infrastructure development, and low levels of public digital literacy. This study further highlights the importance of periodic regulatory updates and international cooperation in addressing cybercrime that is increasingly complex and transnational in nature. Strengthening the legal system and enhancing public awareness are therefore identified as key factors in fostering a safer digital environment and supporting sustainable growth of the digital economy.
This study was conducted with two primary objectives. First, it examines the concept of justice in relation to the benchmark of investigators’ concerns used to assess and determine the detention of suspects under the subjective detention requirement stipulated in Article 21 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) of 1981. Second, it analyzes a comparative assessment of the value of justice embodied in the detention requirements for suspects under Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP and Article 93 paragraph (5) of the 2025 KUHAP. This research employs normative legal research, positioning law within a system of norms by referring to statutory regulations relevant to the subject matter. Data were collected through library research and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical approach by systematically presenting the issues and examining them in depth. The findings indicate that the value of justice inherent in the subjective detention requirement under Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP—specifically regarding circumstances that give rise to “concerns” that a suspect may abscond, destroy or remove evidence, and/or reoffend—is not aligned with the principle of equality before the law. In practice, this provision relies solely on the subjective assessment of the authorized investigator, thereby creating room for discriminatory treatment in determining whether suspects should be detained. The reform of the KUHAP through Law No. 20 of 2025 reflects an effort to enhance the value of justice by formulating more objective detention requirements under Article 93 paragraph (5) compared to Article 21 paragraph (1) of the 1981 KUHAP. Nevertheless, the reformed detention provisions still lack clear evaluative benchmarks and implementing regulations, which continues to allow investigative discretion in determining whether a suspect may be detained. Consequently, the value of justice has not yet been fully guaranteed.
One of the significant challenges in criminal law is the prevalence of narcotics offenses committed by recidivists—individuals who reoffend after having previously served a sentence. Recidivist status creates complex juridical dilemmas, as it serves as a statutory ground for sentence aggravation, often resulting in severe verdicts ranging from life imprisonment to the death penalty. This practice triggers a debate regarding the fundamental objectives of sentencing, where judges are compelled to strike a balance between retribution (retributive justice) to ensure deterrence, prevention (preventative justice), and rehabilitation (rehabilitative justice) aimed at social reintegration. This study aims to examine the legal framework governing narcotics offenses under Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics and the specific sentencing mechanisms applied to repeat offenders. This research employs a normative legal methodology, utilizing secondary data through library research to analyze relevant statutes and legal literature. The findings demonstrate that the sentencing system under the Narcotics Law mandates aggravated penalties for offenders involved in organized networks, those involving minors, and those with recidivist status. Sentencing for narcotics recidivists emphasizes enhanced sanctions; while Articles 486 to 488 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) establish general provisions for recidivism, Article 144 of Law Number 35 of 2009 specifically stipulates that recidivists may be subject to an additional one-third of the maximum prescribed penalty.
