Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0.702
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pandecta Brawijaya Law Journal : Journal of Legal Studies JURISDICTIE Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah Jurnal Selat
Sihabudin Sihabudin, Sihabudin
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 6 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 6 Documents
Search

 1 
THE EMBODIMENT OF EFFICIENCY-JUSTICE PRINCIPLE IN INDONESIAN RETAIL REGULATIONS Tulandi, Edwin Steven; Suhariningsih, Suhariningsih; Sihabudin, Sihabudin; Winarno, Bambang
Brawijaya Law Journal Vol 4, No 2 (2017): Law and Sustainable Development
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Brawijaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (39.947 KB) | DOI: 10.21776/ub.blj.2017.004.02.01

Abstract

Retail regulations is one of national sector which is impacted by globalization on the legal aspects in Indonesia. The dynamics of the traditional retail (traditional market and mom and pop store) management in some areas tend to have an orientation on increasing local revenue which can be seen in the management of irregular traditional market management and transition of traditional market to the private sector. On the other hand, the proliferation of modern retail which is side by side with traditional retail is a form of arrangement that is not in accordance with the retail 's designation/purpose. This indicates that the efficiency-justice principle that aims to create a balance turns more to the efficiency of the exclusion of justice for traditional retail. This paper aims to analyze the embodiment of Efficiency-Justice Principle in Indonesian Retail Regulations. The method used in this research is normative-juridical method, which analyze existing national retail regulations. It proposes appropriate method in embodying Efficiency-Justice Principle in Indonesian Retail Regulations.
Kepastian Hukum Surat Keterangan Waris Sebagai Persyaratan Pengambilan Jaminan Kredit Ahmad, Aden; Sihabudin, Sihabudin; Hamidah, Siti
Jurnal Selat Vol 6 No 1 (2018): JURNAL SELAT
Publisher : Program Studi Ilmu Hukum Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (1027.212 KB) | DOI: 10.31629/selat.v6i1.809

Abstract

Tujuan penulisan adalah untuk menganalisis kepastian hukum surat keterangan waris yang dibuat menurut penggolongan penduduk sebagai persyaratan pengambilan jaminan kredit. Metode yang digunakan dalam penulisan adalah metode kualitatif dengan pendekatan normatif.  Adanya ketentuan penggolongan penduduk seperti ketentuan Pasal 131 dan 163 Indische Staatregeling tidak dapat memberikan kepastian hukum dalam pembuatan keterangan waris yang digunakan sebagai syarat pengambilan jaminan kredit, karena dalam praktiknya ada pihak bank yang meminta surat keterangan waris harus dibuat oleh Notaris, walaupun yang bersangkutan termasuk golongan pribumi. Sebenarnya Pasal 15 ayat (1) UUJN 2014 tidak secara jelas menyebutkan kewenangan Notaris untuk membuat surat keterangan waris, namun  pihak bank lebih memilih surat keterangan waris harus dibuat oleh Notaris, dengan pertimbangan karena surat keterangan waris yang dibuat oleh Notaris lebih memiliki kekuatan pembuktian yang kuat. Hal ini karena setiap akta yang dibuat oleh Notaris memiliki kekuatan pembuktian lahiriah, formal dan material. Perlu diperhatikan bahwa setelah Indonesia Merdeka, mestinya praktik pembuatan surat keterangan waris berdasarkan golongan pendudukan tidak perlu ada lagi, karena hal tersebut bertentangan dengan UU Nomor 40 Tahun 2008, karena hal tersebut merupakan tindakan dikriminatif sekaligus rasialis, dan melanggar prinsip-prinsip Hak Azasi Manusia. Dengan demikian, aturan hukum dalam pembuatan bukti sebagai ahli waris yang masih harus berdasarkan etnis dan institusi yang membuatnya berbeda harus segera diakhiri, di samping itu tidak ada akibat hukum apapun dengan adanya pembedaan bukti ahli waris berdasarkan etnis ini.
Tinjauan Yuridis Pemungutan Pajak Penghasilan Atas Transaksi Jual Beli Hak Atas Tanah dan/atau Bangunan Husodo, Bima Satrio; Sihabudin, Sihabudin; Harjati, Eny
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol 12, No 2 (2017): December
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v12i2.9950

Abstract

Penelitian ini mengnalisis pemungutan Pajak Penghasilan (PPh) atas transaksi jual beli hak atas tanah dan/atau bangunan di Kota Malang yang tergantung hasil verifikasi lapangan pajak BPHTB dan mengetahui dasar hukum verifikasi lapangan dalam menentukan besaran tarif pemungutan Pajak Penghasilan (PPh) atas transaksi jual beli hak atas tanah dan/atau bangunan di Kota Malang. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis empiris dengan pendekatan yuridis sosiologis. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Tarif pemungutan pajak penghasilan (pph) atas transaksi jual beli hak atas tanah dan/atau bangunan ditentukan oleh hasil verifikasi lapangan PPh BPHTB tetap pada besaran yang telah ditetapkan dalam PP Nomor 34 Tahun 2016 yaitu hanya sebesar 2,5% tanpa harus dihitung kemudian dengan hasil verifikasi lapangan seperti yang terjadi di Kota Malang. Dasar hukum dalam melakukan verifikasi lapangan dalam menentukan besaran tarif pemungutan pajak penghasilan (pph) atas transaksi jual beli hak atas tanah dan/atau bangunan di Kota Malang tidak ada sama sekali, baik di dalam Perda maupun Perwal sehingga kegiatan verifikasi lapangan yang selama ini dijadikan dasar untuk menentukan besaran PPh BPHTB tidak memiliki kepastian hukumThis study analyzes the collection of Income Tax (PPh) on the sale and purchase transactions of land and / or building rights in Malang which depend on the verification result of BPHTB tax field and to know the legal basis of field verification in determining the tariff rate of Income Tax (PPh) on sale and purchase transactions rights to land and / or buildings in Malang. The research method used is empirical juridical with sociological juridical approach. The results of this study indicate that the tariff of income tax (pph) on the sale and purchase transactions of land and / or building rights is determined by the verification result of the field of fixed income tax on the amount specified in Government Regulation Number 34 Year 2016 which is only 2.5% must be calculated later with the results of field verification as happened in Malang. The legal basis for conducting field verification in determining the amount of income tax collection tariff (PPh) on the sale and purchase transaction of land and / or building in Malang is not present at all, either in Perda or Perwal so that field verification activity which has been used as the basis to determine the amount of PPh BPHTB does not have legal certainty.
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PARA PEMEGANG SAHAM DALAM PROSES PERMOHONAN PEMBUBARAN PERSEROAN TERBATAS KEPADA PENGADILAN: Studi Putusan Nomor: 534 K/Pdt/2014 Hapsari, Puspita Ika; Sihabudin, Sihabudin; Santoso, Budi
Jurisdictie: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah Jurisdictie: Vol. 10, No. 2 (2019)
Publisher : Fakultas Syariah

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18860/j.v10i2.7363

Abstract

Pembubaran adalah tindakan yang mengakibatkan Perseroan berhenti eksistensinya  dan tidak lagi menjalankan kegiatan bisnis untuk selama-lamanya. Kemudian, diikuti dengan proses administrasi berupa pemberitahuan, pengumuman, dan pemutusan hubungan kerja dengan karyawannya. Permohonan pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan diatur dalam Pasal 146 ayat(1) huruf c Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (selanjutnya disebut dengan UUPT). Permohonan pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan adalah cara yang dapat ditempuh oleh pemegang saham jika terdapat perimbangan kepemilikan saham pada Perseroan masing-masing sebesar 50% (lima puluh persen) dimana Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) tidak dapat mengambil keputusan yang sah karena perimbangan kepemilikan saham tersebut. Oleh karena itu, tujuan penulisan ini adalah untuk menganalisis perlindungan hukum para pemegang saham dalam proses pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan. Metode yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah yuridis normatif, metode penelitian ini digunakan oleh penulis untuk menganalisis perlindungan hukum pemegang saham dalam permohonan pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas (Studi Putusan Nomor: 534 K/Pdt/2014) dikaitkan dengan Pasal 146 ayat (1) huruf c UUPT.The dissolution is an act which causing company has no existence and unable to continue its business activities forever. Then, followed by an administration process such as notification, announcement, and downsizing with the employees. The dissolution application of Limited Liability Company to court is regulated in Article 146 Clause (1) Part c Law Number 40 the year 2007 about Limited Liability Company. The dissolution of Limited Liability Company to the court is an option which can be done by shareholders if there is a 50% (fifty percents) balance where Annual Shareholders Meeting unable to take a decision because of its shareholder's balance. Thus, the aim of this paper is to analyze the law protection of shareholders in Limited Liability Company’s dissolution application to the court. The method used in this paper is normative juridical, which used by the researcher to analyze the law protection for a shareholder in dissolution application of Limited Liability Company (Final Judgement Number: 534 K/Pdt/2014) related to Article 146 Clause (1) Part c Law of Limited Liability Company.
IMPLEMENTASI PASAL 86 AYAT (4) PERATURAN MENTERI KOPERASI DAN USAHA KECIL DAN MENENGAH NOMOR 09 TAHUN 2018 TENTANG KEWAJIBAN PENGESAHAN PENGURUS BARU KOPERASI DI KOTA MALANG Trisnayani, Larasati; Sihabudin, Sihabudin; Suryokumoro, Herman
Jurisdictie: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah Jurisdictie: Vol. 10, No. 2 (2019)
Publisher : Fakultas Syariah

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18860/j.v10i2.7367

Abstract

Pergantian pengurus baru harus dilaporkan ke Dinas atau Kementerian Koperasi dan UMKM untuk dicatat atau mendapatkan persetujuan, sesuai dengan yang dinyatakan dalam Pasal 86 ayat (4) Peraturan Menteri Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil dan Menengah Republik Indonesia Nomor 09 Tahun 2018  Tentang Kewajiban Pengesahan Pengurus Baru Koperasi. Namun, karena kurangnya sosialisasi dan informasi tentang pasal tersebut terjadi perbedaan antar koperasi dalam melaksanakan pasal tersebut. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengidentifikasi, mendeskripsi dan menganalisis pelаksаnааn Pаsаl 86 аyаt (4) Perаturаn Menteri Koperаsi dаn Usаhа Kecil dаn Menengаh Republik Indonesiа Nomor 09 Tаhun 2018  Tentаng Kewаjibаn Pengesаhаn Pengurus Bаru Koperаsi pаdа Koperаsi di lingkungаn Kotа Mаlаng. Jenis penelitiаn yаng digunаkаn аdаlаh yuridis empiris dengan metode pendekаtаn Empiris Kuаlitаtif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diperoleh kesimpulan Pelaksanaan Pasal  86 аyаt (4) Perаturаn Menteri Koperаsi dаn Usаhа Kecil dаn Menengаh Republik Indonesiа Nomor 09 Tаhun 2018  Tentаng Kewаjibаn Pengesаhаn Pengurus Bаru Koperаsi di Kota Malang berjalan tidak efektif terutama dikarenakan aspek hukumnya, aparat/ penegak hukumnya dan sarana dan prasarana yang sulit untuk berubah. The appointment of new executive board in a cooperative must be notified to the Office or Ministry of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprise, in order for the datato be recorded and be granted an approval, as its accordance with Article 86 Paragraph (4) Regulation of the Minister of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprise of the Republic of Indonesia Number 09 of 2018 regarding the Obligation to Ratify the Cooperative’s New Executive Board. However, the lack ofdissemination of information concerning the aforementioned article results to the differences among cooperatives in implementing the regulation. The purpose of this research is to identify, describe, and analyze the enforcement of Article 86 Paragraph (4) Regulation of the Minister of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprise of the Republic of Indonesia Number 09 of 2018 regarding the Obligation to Ratify the Cooperative’s New Executive Board in Malang City. This research uses empirical juridical method with qualitative empirical approach. Based on the research result, it can be concluded that the enforcement of Article 86 Paragraph (4) Regulation of the Minister of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprise of the Republic of Indonesia Number 09 of 2018 regarding the Obligation to Ratify the Cooperative’s New Executive Board is not effective, with the main reasons include the legal aspects, the law enforcers, as well as the inflexibility of facilities and infrastructure.
Legal Protection for Investee Company in Venture Capital Agreement in Indonesia Sihabudin, Sihabudin
Brawijaya Law Journal Vol 6, No 1 (2019): Alternative Dispute Resolution
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Brawijaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/ub.blj.2019.006.01.07

Abstract

Business and entrepreneurship are one of the fundamental and important factors in the economy of a nation. In Indonesia lending is being intensified to small and medium-sized companies that are unable to borrow capital from banks through the establishment of venture capital by the government. The existence and role of financial institutions in the form of venture capital in Indonesia is important to study, because it is a new institution that is starting to develop, which certainly has an influence on the development of the business world and legal institutions and institutions. The research method used is empirical juridical, which is qualitative by means of descriptive analysis. The results of the study are that although venture capital has not been based on clear legal aspects, in practice, venture capital activities are complemented by an agreement. Venture Capitalist has a stronger position on the investee company, while freedom of contract can only be applied well when both parties have the same position. However, venture capital tends to protect interest (capital) with special provisions, including its responsibilities. Therefore there is a need for a model and further regulation of the contents of the "standard venture capital agreement", especially the financing mechanism as well as its implementation instructions, so as to provide clearer, more complete and stronger implementation guidelines. A financing agreement made between a venture capital company and its partner company is based on a standard contract that requires supervision and protection to maintain balance. Measures of protection and supervision are through the basis of legislation, control carried out by the government, control carried out by judges (courts) and legal consultants and notaries.
Co-Authors Ahmad, Aden Bima Satrio Husodo Dhiana Puspitawati Dwi Budi Santoso Hapsari, Puspita Ika Harjati, Eny Herman Suryokumoro Pardana, I Nyoman Adi Siti Hamidah Suhariningsih Trisnayani, Larasati Tulandi, Edwin Steven Winarno, Bambang