The existence of two cases based on two different legal norms at the same time can result in a 'pre-judicial dispute', hence the judge must answer the questions (1) whether there is a point of contact which causes the decision of a case depending on the decision of another case; and (2) if such interdependence exists, which case should be adjourned first while waiting for another court's decision. The guidelines for the rules regarding pre-judicial disputes themselves provide a lot of flexibility for judges, but on the other hand it creates problems. This study discusses: (1) the urgency of systematic pre-judicial dispute handling; and (2) formulation of a systematic dispute resolution mechanism. This research uses normative juridical legal research methods. This study concludes that first, the importance of systematic pre-judicial dispute handling, in order to support the validity of evidence, and avoid contradictory decisions, so that law enforcement is achieved through judge decisions that reflect justice, legal certainty, and expediency; second, the formulation of systematic pre-judicial dispute handling is carried out through legal discovery, namely the constituting, qualification, and constituent processes. This formulation cannot only be left to the judge, but also takes into account whether or not the parties have the initiative to file related cases in other courts. This study recommends that a systematic pre-judicial dispute handling mechanism be included in the legislation in order to bind judges.

Either land or apartment unit ownership is proven by a certificate in the name of the right holder. One frequent practical problem regarding this certificate is that many sellers do not take care of the certificate switchover into the buyer’s name. Even though the buyer has paid for the land or apartment unit. Therefore, this paper will further discuss the legal protection for buyers who have not received a certificate in their name from the perspective of civil law and its practice in several court decisions. The method used in this research is normative juridical. The results show that the legal protection provided by Indonesia Civil Code can be compensation and/or real executions, while the implementation in some judges' decisions varies, such as the judges can only ask the seller to fulfill his obligation, grant the buyer the right to carry out the real executions, and/or order the seller to compensate for the loss. Among the legal protection provided by Indonesia Civil Code, the real execution is the most needed protection for buyer because it allows buyers to switch the right holder in the certificate soon.Keywords: legal protection; buyer; certificate switchoverAbstrakHak penguasaan seseorang atas tanah ataupun satuan rumah susun sama-sama dibuktikan dengan sebuah sertipikat atas nama pemegang hak. Terkait sertipikat ini, kerap kali dijumpai problematika dalam praktik dimana pihak penjual tidak mengurus balik nama sertipikat meskipun pihak pembeli telah melunasi harga tanah atau satuan rumah susun. Hal ini mengakibatkan hak pihak pembeli atas tanah atau satuan rumah susun belum kuat. Oleh karena itu dalam artikel ini akan diurakan perlindungan hukum terhadap pembeli yang belum mendapatkan sertipikat atas namanya dilihat dari perspektif hukum perdata dan praktiknya dalam beberapa putusan pengadilan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Berdasarkan hasil pembahasan disimpulkan bahwa perlindungan hukum menurut KUHPer bisa dalam bentuk ganti kerugian dan/atau eksekusi riil, sementara pada beberapa putusan hakim dapat dilihat keragaman perlindungan hukum di mana ada hakim yang hanya meminta penjual memenuhi prestasi, memberi hak pada pembeli melaksanakan eksekusi riil, dan/atau memerintahkan penjual mengganti kerugian. Dari bentuk-bentuk perlindungan hukum yang ada, maka yang paling dibutuhkan pembeli ialah eksekusi riil agar pembeli dapat segera menyelesaikan proses balik nama.Kata kunci: perlindungan hukum; pembeli; balik nama sertipikat

Forest destructions has been escalating worldwide, including in Indonesia. Therefore, the Government issued Law Number 18 / 2013 on the Prevention and Eradiction of Deforestation (P3H) which was expected to guarantee legal certainty with emphasis on eradication of organized forest destruction. The problem to be discussed in this paper is about law enforcement and application of Law Number 18 / 2013 which frequently used to criminalize the indigenous people in Indonesia. The indigenous people have been criminalized on the ground of unlawful forest products utilization, while they merely foraging to fulfill their basic necessities. The criminalization of indigenous people is a conclusive evidence, which proof that Indonesian Goverment has been neglecting the indigenous people’s right. This paper use normative approach. The conclusion of this paper analyze that the problem of the criminalization happens in implementation level, which caused by the ignorance of law enforcement apparatus and vested interest.

Cepatnya pertumbuhan penggunaan internet telah menyebabkan pemerintah di berbagai negara menerapkan ‘kebijakan pembatasan internet’ untuk mengimbangi posibilitas penyalahgunaan internet, termasuk pula Indonesia. Pembatasan internet demikian menimbulkan polemik terutama mengenai hak-hak kebebasan berpendapat dan hak berkomunikasi serta mendapatkan informasi. Pada tulisan ini, polemik tersebut akan ditelusuri lebih lanjut dengan 3 (tiga) perspektif yaitu: (1) negara hukum; (2) hak asasi manusia; dan (3) komparasi hukum. Tulisan ini dibuat dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum yuridis-normatif. Hasil analisis tulisan ini menunjukkan bahwa: (1) masih terdapatnya prinsip-prinsip negara hukum yang belum terpenuhi dalam pembatasan internet; (2) pembatasan hak asasi manusia dalam pembatasan ‘jaringan internet’ yang belum memiliki landasan undang-undang; (3) karakteristik pembatasan internet dalam padangan beberapa negara yang diharapkan yaitu: a) ada landasan yuridis yang jelas; b) memuat prosedur pembatasan yang jelas; c) adanya pemeriksaan dan pengawasan; d) adanya pengawas independen; e) adanya mekanisme perlindungan, pemulihan, dan rehabilitasi bagi pihak-pihak yang tidak bersalah.

Reciprocal activity between 2 (two) parties is something that often happens in daily life. By carrying out these reciprocal activities, the parties have unknowingly entered into an agreement (legal act) that gives rise to an engagement (legal relationship in the field of property between 2 (two) or more people in which one party is entitled to something and the other party is obliged to do so. over something). The obligations agreed upon by the parties are often called 'achievements'. According to Article 1234 of the Civil Code (KUHPer), achievements born from an engagement can be in the form of: (1) giving something; (2) do something; (3) do nothing. In order for both parties to get what they want, the achievements in each engagement must be carried out by each party. Academically, defaults often intersect with 'acts against the law' (PMH) because both of them are related to acts of 'harming others' and the legal consequences of 'compensation'. In practice, there is often confusion where a default is said to be PMH, or vice versa. Whereas default and PMH are 2 (two) different legal acts. The phenomenon of mixing default and PMH can also be found in various judges' decisions in court.