Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 40 Documents
Search

PENGATURAN DAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM PEMBOIKOTAN DALAM ANTITRUST LAW AMERIKA SERIKAT Anisah, Siti
Jurnal Media Hukum Vol 22, No 2 (2015)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Boycott is one of violations in the competition law that eliminating the freedom of parties to enter the market. The aim of it no other than lessened fair competition. Theoretically, the issue related boycott discuss about the approach utilised by the authority to investigate and enforce boycott and its meaning: whether boycott is vertical or horizontal, or both; and what are the criteria of the violations? Given so few references on boycott, this paper attempts to reveal the regulation and the enforcement of it in the United States. It is aimed as reference to regulate and/or to settle the competition law cases of boycott in Indonesia in the future day. The United States does not specifically state boycott in the Antitrust Law. The United States includes boycott as concerted to deal and refuse to deal as ruled in the Section 1 of Sherman Act.
Tanggungjawab Hukum Dokter dan Apoteker Dalam Pelayanan Resep Muh, Wendi; Fadhli, Fadhli; Anisah, Siti
Media Farmasi: Jurnal Ilmu Farmasi Vol 13, No 1: Maret 2016
Publisher : Universitas Ahmad Dahlan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (327.511 KB) | DOI: 10.12928/mf.v13i1.5743

Abstract

Resep adalah permintaan tertulis oleh dokter kepada apoteker untuk menyiapkan dan menyerahkan obat kepada pasien. Terdapat problematika yang telah lama terjadi dan secara terus menerus berlangsung, berupa penulisan resep dokter yang sulit dibaca dan ketidaklengkapan administrasi resep sebagai informasi pengobatan pasien (legalitas). Ini merupakan salah satu faktor yang dapat mengakibatkan medication error dari sebuah pelayanan kesehatan. Didasarkan hal itu, maka perlu dikaji bagaimana pertanggungjawaban dokter dan apoteker dalam pelayanan resep yang menyebabkan medication error. Penelitian bertujuan untuk memahami bentuk pertanggungjawaban hukum dokter dalam penulisan resep dokter yang sulit dibaca yang menyebabkan medication error pada pasien dan untuk memahami tanggungjawab Apoteker Pengelola Apotek (APA) dalam pelayanan resep dokter yang dapat menyebabkan medication error. Metode penelitian yang penulis gunakan adalah metode penelitian normatif-empiris, yakni dengan melihat fakta-fakta yang ada di lapangan dan kemudian dibandingkan dengan aturan yang berlaku. Data lapangan dibutuhkan untuk memahami permasalahan-permasalahan yang terjadi di lapangan, dan upaya mengatasi permasalahan tersebut ditinjau dari aspek hukum yakni peraturan perudang-undangan yang berlaku. Dari hasil penelitian, pertanggungjawaban hukum dokter terhadap pelayanan resep meliputi tahap Prescribing error menyangkut segala permintaan dalam resep, sedangkan APA bertanggungjawab terhadap segala sesuatu menyangkut transcribing error (error terjadi pada saat pembacaan resep), dispensing error (kesalahan penyebaran/distribusi), administrasion error (kesalahan pemberian obat), dan patient compliance error (kesalahan kepatuhan penggunaan obat oleh pasien). Tanggung jawab dokter selaku profesi dalam pelaksanaan tugas profesional di bidang kesehatan, didasarkan tanggung jawab norma etik dokter serta tanggung jawab hukum yang didasarkan pada ketentuan hukum perdata, pidana, dan administrasi. Tanggung jawab APA adalah memberikan obat pada pasien sesuai dengan yang tertulis di dalam resep sebagai suatu kuasa, tetapi didasarkan ilmu, keterampilan dan wewenang yang dimilikinya. Kata kunci: dokter, apoteker, medication error, tanggungjawab huku
THE USE OF PER SE ILLEGAL APPROACH IN PROVING THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS IN INDONESIA Anisah, Siti
Media Hukum Vol 27, No 1 (2020): June
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The Indonesia Competition Commission (the ICC) often faces difficulties to find evidence in the form of agreement made by business actors in determining prices. The agreement is the main element to prove the price-fixing which is prohibited under Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999. The legal issue discussed in this research is whether the use of per se illegal approach in proving the price-fixing agreement requires direct evidence or it is sufficient with an indirect evidence. This normative study found that the competition authorities still impose sanctions to business actors even though the (legitimate) agreement does not exist. The examination requires an in-depth understanding of economic theories and should prioritize the principle of prudence due to its vulnerability to manipulation. The analysis of Decision No. 08/KPPU-I/2014 and 04/KPPU-I/2016 found that the ICC proved the price-fixing case using indirect evidence and included an analysis of the impact on competition. Both cases indicate that the ICC applied the rule of reason approach because of the difficulties in finding the evidence of the agreement. On the other hand, the ICC applied per se illegal approach in the Decision No. 10/KPPU-L/2009 and 14/KPPU-I/2014 due to the existence of direct evidence.
Tanggungjawab Hukum Dokter dan Apoteker Dalam Pelayanan Resep Wendi Muh; Fadhli Fadhli; Siti Anisah
Media Farmasi: Jurnal Ilmu Farmasi Vol 13, No 1: Maret 2016
Publisher : Universitas Ahmad Dahlan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (327.511 KB) | DOI: 10.12928/mf.v13i1.5743

Abstract

Resep adalah permintaan tertulis oleh dokter kepada apoteker untuk menyiapkan dan menyerahkan obat kepada pasien. Terdapat problematika yang telah lama terjadi dan secara terus menerus berlangsung, berupa penulisan resep dokter yang sulit dibaca dan ketidaklengkapan administrasi resep sebagai informasi pengobatan pasien (legalitas). Ini merupakan salah satu faktor yang dapat mengakibatkan medication error dari sebuah pelayanan kesehatan. Didasarkan hal itu, maka perlu dikaji bagaimana pertanggungjawaban dokter dan apoteker dalam pelayanan resep yang menyebabkan medication error. Penelitian bertujuan untuk memahami bentuk pertanggungjawaban hukum dokter dalam penulisan resep dokter yang sulit dibaca yang menyebabkan medication error pada pasien dan untuk memahami tanggungjawab Apoteker Pengelola Apotek (APA) dalam pelayanan resep dokter yang dapat menyebabkan medication error. Metode penelitian yang penulis gunakan adalah metode penelitian normatif-empiris, yakni dengan melihat fakta-fakta yang ada di lapangan dan kemudian dibandingkan dengan aturan yang berlaku. Data lapangan dibutuhkan untuk memahami permasalahan-permasalahan yang terjadi di lapangan, dan upaya mengatasi permasalahan tersebut ditinjau dari aspek hukum yakni peraturan perudang-undangan yang berlaku. Dari hasil penelitian, pertanggungjawaban hukum dokter terhadap pelayanan resep meliputi tahap Prescribing error menyangkut segala permintaan dalam resep, sedangkan APA bertanggungjawab terhadap segala sesuatu menyangkut transcribing error (error terjadi pada saat pembacaan resep), dispensing error (kesalahan penyebaran/distribusi), administrasion error (kesalahan pemberian obat), dan patient compliance error (kesalahan kepatuhan penggunaan obat oleh pasien). Tanggung jawab dokter selaku profesi dalam pelaksanaan tugas profesional di bidang kesehatan, didasarkan tanggung jawab norma etik dokter serta tanggung jawab hukum yang didasarkan pada ketentuan hukum perdata, pidana, dan administrasi. Tanggung jawab APA adalah memberikan obat pada pasien sesuai dengan yang tertulis di dalam resep sebagai suatu kuasa, tetapi didasarkan ilmu, keterampilan dan wewenang yang dimilikinya. Kata kunci: dokter, apoteker, medication error, tanggungjawab huku
PENGATURAN DAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM PEMBOIKOTAN DALAM ANTITRUST LAW AMERIKA SERIKAT Siti Anisah
Jurnal Media Hukum Vol 22, No 2 (2015)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18196/jmh.2015.0054.173-189

Abstract

Boycott is one of violations in the competition law that eliminating the freedom of parties to enter the market. The aim of it no other than lessened fair competition. Theoretically, the issue related boycott discuss about the approach utilised by the authority to investigate and enforce boycott and its meaning: whether boycott is vertical or horizontal, or both; and what are the criteria of the violations? Given so few references on boycott, this paper attempts to reveal the regulation and the enforcement of it in the United States. It is aimed as reference to regulate and/or to settle the competition law cases of boycott in Indonesia in the future day. The United States does not specifically state boycott in the Antitrust Law. The United States includes boycott as concerted to deal and refuse to deal as ruled in the Section 1 of Sherman Act.
The Use of Per Se Illegal Approach in Proving the Price-Fixing Agreements in Indonesia Siti Anisah
Jurnal Media Hukum Volume 27, Number 1, June 2020
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18196/jmh.20200145

Abstract

The Indonesia Competition Commission (the ICC) often faces difficulties to find evidence in the form of agreement made by business actors in determining prices. The agreement is the main element to prove the price-fixing which is prohibited under Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999. The legal issue discussed in this research is whether the use of per se illegal approach in proving the price-fixing agreement requires direct evidence or it is sufficient with an indirect evidence. This normative study found that the competition authorities still impose sanctions to business actors even though the (legitimate) agreement does not exist. The examination requires an in-depth understanding of economic theories and should prioritize the principle of prudence due to its vulnerability to manipulation. The analysis of Decision No. 08/KPPU-I/2014 and 04/KPPU-I/2016 found that the ICC proved the price-fixing case using indirect evidence and included an analysis of the impact on competition. Both cases indicate that the ICC applied the rule of reason approach because of the difficulties in finding the evidence of the agreement. On the other hand, the ICC applied per se illegal approach in the Decision No. 10/KPPU-L/2009 and 14/KPPU-I/2014 due to the existence of direct evidence.
The Protection of Creditor’s Right and Actio Pauliana Siti Anisah
Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM Vol. 16 No. 2 (2009): English Version
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

In general, the proving of actio pauliana is not simple, and the procces itself is not organized well. For the reasons, in order to make the protection of creditors’ right through actio pauliana is applicable, then we need implementative procedure provision concerning to actio pauliana.Keywords: Creditors’ Right; Actio Pauliana.
Perlindungan Terhadap Kepentingan Kreditor Melalui Actio Pauliana Siti Anisah
Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM Vol. 16 No. 2 (2009)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20885/iustum.vol16.iss2.art3

Abstract

Generally, the procedure to prove the application of actio pauliana is not simple. In addition to this, the application for the settlement of actio pauliana is lack or coordination among the relevant authorities. It is considered therefore that the protection on creditor’s interest through actio pauliana is possible to be enforced. More than this, further regulation on the implementation of the procedure to prove actio pauliana which is implementable is highly demanded.Keywords: Act Of Bankruptcy, Creditor, Actio Pauliana
Studi Komparasi terhadap Perlindungan Kepentingan Kreditor dan Debitor dalam Hukum Kepailitan Siti Anisah
Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM Vol 16, Edisi Khusus 2009
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Initially, the goal of bankruptcy law is the liquidation of debitor’s assets. Later, it becomes the means for reorganization of the company’s debitor, and protects the honest individual debitor by executing discharge. The goal is manifested in Acts Number 37 of 2004 which protects the debtor more as the condition of bankruptcy, however it is not easy to get the bankrupt status in reality. That fact was exploited by using the theory of creditor’s bargain and value-based account. This research used normative juridical method and law comparison. The research found that Indonesian Bankruptcy Acts have not so far protected the creditor, debitor and stakeholders; not based on the philosophy of protecting debitor solve; not differentiating the bankruptcy between individual and company though each goal is different. And the last, it has not introduced the discharge for individual bankruptcy.Key word : Bankruptcy law, creditor, debitor
Studi Perbandingan Pengaturan tentang Pengecualian Industri Pertanian Terhadap Berlakunya Hukum Persaingan Usaha Siti Anisah
Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM Vol. 19 No. 4: Oktober 2012
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20885/iustum.vol19.iss4.art7

Abstract

The research is aimed at finding out whether the exemption for agricultural industries in the competition laws in Unites States of America and European Union is fully or partially granted. In addition, the study examines whether the competition law in Indonesia also regulates exemption for agricultural industries. The research method is normative juridical with a legal comparison approach. The result shows that the exemption for agricultural industries in the United States of America mentioned in the antitrust law was regulated by the Congress through Clayton Act 1916 and confirmed in Capper-Volstead Act 1922. In European Union, the exemption is regulated in the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The regulations in the United States and European Union are the same, in which farmers are allowed to establish agricultural cooperatives that aim to meet the needs of its members, such as collective processing, preparation for markets, merchants, and marketing. Although Indonesia does not have a specific law for exemption, several stipulations in Article 50 and 51 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 can be interpreted as exemption for agricultural industries in the competition law.