If secularism is described merely as the decline of religious roles in public spheres or religious privatization, then there would be difficulties to put the secular term on Indonesian history. The principle of divinity “Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa” as adopted on the “Pancasila” as state ideology has become basis for religionization and rejecting any utterance of secularism at law, State institution, or other public domain. On the other hand, Indonesia as a democratic State as well as the most populous Muslim country in the world has never put the notion of Islamic state or theocracy as its State model. Its modernity is developed under the Western idea of law supremacy or the rule of law to which a democratic political system is laid down. This situation seems to be paradoxical in the view of both religionist or modernist due to its inconsistency to their strict concept especially on Islamic state and secularism. Or, is Indonesia another example of how religion and modernity has its multiplicity based its own historical reflexivity without making clash between religion and secularism? This article is intended to seek kind of distinction on Indonesian secularity based on how its blasphemy law developed and functioned under the framework of open-ended negotiation. The first epoch assumed as the place of negotiation on Indonesian secularity was taken place on initial stage of State’s formation around transition era of independence in 1945. Then, there have been several renegotiations afterward through multiple and overlapping instruments of development such as politics, economy, law, and culture. The blasphemy law as one of such instruments will be used to read how the relevant actors of Indonesian history has constructed their own concept of state and religion included its interrelationship characters as the basis for social and structural differentiation or distinction. The expected outcome of the reading and its analysis is to reveal any evidence of Indonesian particularity on secularization which may be related to the concept of multiple secularities.

This research examines the aspects of the notary's responsibility as a public servant, specifically regarding individuals with disabilities, in relation to Law Number 25 of 2009 on Public Services. The notary is involved and has the responsibility to provide services to the public. In this study, the researcher addresses two topics: the duties and responsibilities of the notary as a public servant, and the use of Braille script in desired deeds. To answer these two discussions, the author adopts a normative juridical approach through the study of legal materials and literature sources related to the chosen theme. The research findings indicate that the notary has a workload of tasks and responsibilities as a public servant in the private realm, and copies as well as minutes of deeds can be made using Braille script. The International Organization's Notarial Guide of Good Practices for People With Disabilities has recommended the establishment of specific regulations for individuals with disabilities, essentially allowing the use of Braille script in deeds as a way to maximize services.

The purpose of this study is to analyze and describe the basis used by Bapenda to deviate from the provisions of Article 6, paragraph (2), letter a of Law Number 20 of 2000 concerning BPHTB, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 7, paragraph (2), letter a, in conjunction with Article 10 of Malang City Regional Regulation Number 15 of 2010 concerning BPHTB, in collecting BPHTB in Malang City. It also aims to analyze and describe the indicators used by Bapenda to determine the fair transaction price in the sale and purchase of land in Malang City for the collection of BPHTB. This research is a socio-legal study with a juridical-sociological approach. The research was conducted at the Regional Revenue Agency of Malang City. The analysis results show that the Fees for Acquisition of Rights on Land and Building (BPHTB), as a local tax, are collected by the local government. BPHTB is calculated using the tariff and tax base, after being reduced by NPOPTKP. There is a difference in terminology between NPOP in the BPHTB Law and NJOP in the BPHTB Perda of Malang City. The collection of BPHTB must adhere to the principles of justice, legal certainty, legality, and simplicity. However, there were irregularities in the collection of BPHTB by Bapenda in Malang City in 2022 and 2023, as they violated the provisions by using the tax database and determining the increase in NJOP without a clear basis, undermining the principle of legality and causing conflicts with the BPHTB Law.