Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk memperoleh gambaran tentang pendaftaran Hak Tanggungan secara elektronik yang telah diterbitkan Peraturan Menteri Agraria dan Tata Ruang/Kepala Badan Pertanahan Nasional Nomor 9 Tahun 2019 tidak semua proses pendaftaran HakTanggungan dilakukan secara elektronik. Metode Penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Sedangkan metode pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah metode pendekatan undang-undang, konseptual dan historis. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa, pendaftaran Hak Tanggungan secara elektronik dilakukan melalui Sistem HakTanggungan Elektronik oleh PPAT dan Kreditur dengan mengupload dokumen persyaratan secara elektronik sampai mendapat sertipikat Hak Tanggungan dan catatan Hak Tanggungan pada buku tanah dan Sertipikat Hak Atas Tanah atau Hak Hak Milik Atas Satuan Rumah Susun dalam bentuk elektronik, dan juga pendaftaran Hak Tanggungan secara elektronik masih memiliki kelemahan antara lain Sertipikat Hak Atas Tanah Atau Hak Milik Atas Satuan Rumah Susun harus atasnama debitur dan belum diaturnya mekanisme sindikasi kredit.

The government regulates the facilitation of community plantation development as much as 20% of the area of rights by plantation companies. This provision which is the obligation of the company was still not regulated in a clear and firm legal arrangement so that it created multiple interpretations in its application. Based on this matter, the writer was motivated to analyze the legal arrangements for the facilitation of community plantation development by plantation companies and the obstacles encountered in the implementation. The plantation company which was the focus of the research was PT. Pamor Ganda with Business Right (known as HGU in Indonesia abbreviation) Number 16/1989 by studying the HGU extension document. This was a normative research with a statutory approach. The method of analysis performed was content analysis, then the interpretation was carried out to understand the conclusions. The results showed that legal arrangements in the land sector, Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), and plantations had not been able to solve the problems that exist in the implementation of facilitation of community plantation development by plantation companies. The company's obstacle was that the plasma farmers' plantation area around the companies’ plantation area had not been able to meet the 20% area requirement. While PT. Pamor Ganda had fulfilled its obligation to facilitate community plantation development by releasing its 114 hectare of HGU area.

In 2018, there was a lawsuit filed by Asbiati and Murisa Binti Nang Agus as the Plaintiffs against PT. Buana Sriwijaya Sejahtera (PT. BSS) as Defendant I, Plantation Cooperation of Tritunggal Jaya as Defendant II, Regent of Musi Rawas Utara as Defendant III, and Village Head of Biaro Lama as Co-Defendant that was submitted to the Lubuklinggau District Court and  had  been decided in  Decision  Number: 15/ Pdt.  G/2018/PN.Llg  In  the  course,  this decision  could  not  be  executed.  This  study discusses  the  reasons  for  the  Lubuklinggau District  Court  Decision  Number  15/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Llg which  has  permanent legal  force (inkracht van gewijsde) cannot be executed, as well as discussing the obstacles to the execution of the Lubuklinggau District Court Decision Number 15/Pdt.G/2018/PNLlg. Execution is the implementation of a Court Decision which has permanent legal force (in kracht van gewijsde) which is carried out forcibly by the District Court where the parties file a lawsuit caused by the losing party in the case rejecting to comply with and to carry out the Court's Decision. The approach used in this study was a normative juridical approach. This study used secondary data obtained from primary and secondary legal materials. The results of this study describe a decision that cannot be executed because there is no argument in the Plaintiffs' lawsuit that places a confiscation of collateral (conservatoir beslaag), and confiscation of execution (excekutorial beslaag) for a decision that has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde), so that the decision does not have executive power. While the obstacles that arise are in the form of the absence of a time limit that serves as a guide for the Head  of  the  Lubuklinggau  District Court  to carry out  and  determine an  execution  of a decision, and the resistance by the executed party who does not want to voluntarily carry out the contents of the judge's decision.

CSR is an element in improving people's welfare. Through the establishment of a CSR Forum which was established based on the Bengkulu Governor's Decree Number: P.127.Dinsos. In 2018 concerning the Establishment of the Bengkulu Province CSR Forum, the Regional Government seeks to increase the participation of every company in Bengkulu. However, the results have not been effective, this is because the formation of this forum was not accompanied by the authority and mechanism in the form of a Governor Regulation. Theimpact is that CSR implementation in Bengkulu Province is small and not focused. The problem in this research is how the implementation of CSR after the issuance of the Bengkulu Governor's Decree Number: P.127.Dinsos. 2018 concerning the Establishment of the Bengkulu Province CSR Forum and What Are the Obstacles in the implementation of the CSR forum. This type of research is empirical, data sources obtained from interviews, documents, as well as literature and legislation relevant to the research. The result of thisresearch is the finding of a 16% percentage of the participation rate of companies in Bengkulu, from a total of 196 companies in Bengkulu, only 33 companies registered by the CSR Forum have distributed CSR. The rest of this company never reported the distribution of CSR. This is very inconsistent with the Utilities Theory because large companies in Bengkulu Province have not contributed too much to the Environment and Society, and are still focused on Company Profits only. Furthermore, in the second discussion it was also conveyed that several obstacles were experienced by the CSR Forum, among others: The government has not yet embraced the forum in relation to companies, There is no Regulation on Implementation Mechanism in the Investment Law and the TDP Law, the Report Submission Mechanism is not Clearly, the absence of basic technical rules for implementing CSR reporting, absence of punishments and sanctions from the local government to companies for distributing CSR.