<p>This study aims to determine the urgency of the authority of investigators in the determination of justice collaborators in criminal acts of corruption. In answering the above problems, the research method used is doctrinal research. This study applies a case approach and concept. While the method of data collection is done by examining case studies and literature studies or mere secondary data. So if the Urgency of Giving the authority of the investigator in questioning the determination of justice collaborator in a criminal act of corruption, the author sees that there are 3 (three) things that become the basis for the urgency of granting authority to determine Justice Collaborator by the investigator, including: a. philosophical, b. juridical, and c. sociological. said to be important because it has become a common perception for investigators and police investigators about the massive and organized circulation of corruption networks at this time, in the investigation process often investigators find the potential of the existence of a saski crown that could become the role of justice collaborator.</p><p> <strong>Keywords:</strong> Justice; Justice Collaborator; Corruption.</p><p><em> </em></p><p align="center"> </p>

Penggunaan media sosial dewasa ini tidak dapat dibendung lagi seiring dengan perkembangan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi. Tidak dapat dipungkiri media sosial juga banyak digunakan oleh kaum ibu. Penggunaan media sosial secara bijak akan sangat bermanfaat bagi penggunanya. Oleh karena itu kepada masyarakat perlu diberikan pengetahuan bahwa penggunaan media sosial yang keliru dapat berakibat yang merugikan bahkan dapat berurusan dengan hukum.Kata kunci       :           media sosial, etika, hukum

Indonesia is a country based on law (rechtsstaat), and is not based on mere power (machtsstaat) where guaranteeing respect for the right to justice and equality before the law is an obligation of the state. However, in practice, access to justice and equality in the face of the law is not evenly distributed to all groups, especially for the poor or poor. Often, when dealing with the law, the rights of suspects / defenders are not able to be fulfilled properly, especially the right to obtain free legal assistance (pro bono). Based on this, Law No. 16 of 2011 on Legal Aid was born to guarantee the exercise of the right to legal aid and is arranged in an orderly order so that it is expected to realize justice and equality of standing before the law for the poor.

This study aims to find out the basis of Law Enforcement on campaign activities in places of worship that focuses on the Sukoharjo District Court Decision Number 56/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Skh, a case related to this research regarding campaign activities in places of worship.One of the characteristics of a democratic country is the existence of people's sovereignty within the country, and Indonesia is a country that adheres to the Pancasila Democracy system, as evidenced by the holding of General Elections, hereinafter referred to as General Elections. The implementation of elections is regulated in Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, which also regulates election crimes, the legal basis is formed and enforced to maintain the dignity of democracy that applies in Indonesia.This research method in writing this thesis uses a normative type of research, which is carried out by reviewing secondary data, which includes primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The nature of the research is descriptive, which is to describe the basis of the prosecutor's considerations in giving demands and the judge's considerations in making decisions as well. The duty of a Prosecutor as a Public Prosecutor is to prove his indictment. Where the decisions and demands of judges and prosecutors must uphold the value of justice, and not forget the value of humanity. As well as the judge's consideration in deciding this case, seeing from the indictment that the indictment was prepared on a subsidiary basis, it became the authority of the Panel of Judges to prove the indictment of Article 521 Jo. Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections.also pay attention to non-juridical elements.