scholarly journals A Critical Review on the status of the beneficiary in Actio Pauliana - Further Discussion on Legal Nature of Actio Pauliana by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da952 Decided May 21, 2015 -

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-69
Author(s):  
Kim Sanghun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status

scholarly journals Resolving ALJ Removal Protections Problem Following Lucia

2020 ◽  
pp. 693
Author(s):  
Spencer Davenport
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Peremptory Challenge ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status

When the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC and held that administrative law judges (ALJs) are Officers under the Constitution, the Court opened a flood of constitutional issues around the status of ALJs and related government positions. One central issue relates to ALJs’ removal protections. ALJs currently have two layers of protection between them and the President. In an earlier Supreme Court decision, the Court held that two layers of tenure protection between an “Officer of the United States” and the President was unconstitutional as it deprived the President the power to hold his officers accountable. As impartial adjudicators, ALJs need those layers of protection to ensure fair adjudicative hearings. Lucia now threatens ALJ protections. This Note argues that implementing a peremptory challenge system which would allow each party in an adjudicative hearing to remove the ALJ from hearing its case would create an avenue in which the Court could justify the removal issue. Such a proposal would fix executive oversight concerns about the President being unable to properly implement his policy. Additionally, peremptory challenges would allow litigants in front of an agency be able to remove ALJs they feel are predisposed to the agency. By addressing both constitutional issues, the Court may be more likely to find that the two layers of tenure protection in place are permissible for those in adjudicatory positions.

scholarly journals Wasiat Wajibah Bagi Ahli Waris Beda Agama (Analisis Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 368K/AG/1995)

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-210
Author(s):  
Iin Mutmainah ◽  
Muhammad Sabir
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
Result Show ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right

This study discusses about the testament wajibah to differently religious heirs (an Analysis of Supreme Court decision number: 368 K/AG/1995). The purpose of this study are to know about the principle of inheritance under islamic law, and to understand the status of testament to differently religious heirs , and to analyze the constitute of consideration and the legal basis used in deciding the rights of differently religious heirs. The result show that the testament wajibah given to differently religious heirs become a problem because of the status of differently religion, these heirs cannot get inheritance rights. Through the decision of supreme court, judge ruled that differently religious heirs have the right to get inheritance with some consideration. Although there is no rule on testament wajibah to differently religious heirs, the judge have succeeded in ijtihad, finding and exploring the value of existing law. This decree shows that the judges actually carry out duties as a legislator who receive, examine, and decide cases such a new through benefit consideration based on the Qur’an and Hadith

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 46/PUU-VIII/2010 TENTANG ANAK DI LUAR KAWIN

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 243
Author(s):  
Nurhadi Nurhadi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Theory

ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 329 K/AG/2014 terkait kedudukan anak di luar kawin yang berinisial MIR. MIR tidak diakui oleh ayahnya. Ibunya yang berinisial AM mengajukan gugatan isbat nikah (pengesahan perkawinannya) yang dikumulasikan dengan pengesahan kedudukan anaknya berdasarkan pada Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010. Putusan tersebut menolak seluruh gugatan AM dengan pertimbangan pengadilan agama tidak berwenang mengesahkan perkawinan yang terjadi setelah berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974, dan permohonan pengesahan kedudukan anak di luar kawin bukan kewenangan pengadilan agama. Dari beberapa permasalahan yang ditemui, penelitian ini mengulas tiga rumusan masalah. Pertama, apakah dalam Putusan Nomor 329 K/AG/2014 sudah tercermin aspek yuridis, aspek sosiologis, dan aspek filosofis. Kedua, apakah pertimbangan hukum dalam Putusan Nomor 329 K/AG/2014 telah mengimplementasikan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUUVIII/2010? Ketiga, bagaimana kondisi petitum tentang anak di luar kawin apabila ditinjau menurut teori keadilan, teori perlindungan, teori kewenangan, teori hukum progresif, dan teori mashlahah? Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam putusan tersebut lebih mengutamakan aspek yuridis, sedangkan aspek sosiologis dan filosofis cenderung diabaikan. Putusan tersebut tidak mengimplementasikan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010. Berdasarkan teori keadilan, teori perlindungan hukum, teori kewenangan, teori hukum progresif, dan teori mashlahah, petitum tentang anak di luar kawin dapat dikabulkan.Kata kunci: anak di luar kawin, anak biologis, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Mahkamah Agung.ABSTRACTThe Supreme Court Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 concerns on the case of an out-of-wedlock status with the initials MIR who was disowned by her father. The mother of the child initials AM, filed a lawsuit related to itsbat marriage (marriage ratification) which was accumulated with the ratification of her child’s status based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010. The decision completely rejected the lawsuit considering that the Religious Court was not authorized to ratify a marriage that occurred after the enactment of Law Number 1 of 1974, and the request to legalize the status of an extramarital child was not the authority of the religious court. Of the several problems encountered, in this analysis three formulations of the problem were discussed. First, has the Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 reflected the juridical, sociological, and philosophical aspects? Second, have these legal considerations of Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 implemented the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010? Third, how is the condition of petitum related to extramarital children viewed from the theory of justice, protection theory, authority theory, progressive legal theory, and mashlahah theory? The method used in this research is descriptive-analysis. The results showed that the decision prioritize the juridical aspect. Meanwhile, the sociological and philosophical aspects tend to be neglected. The decision does not seem to implement the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010. Based on the theory of justice, legal protection, authority, progressive law and mashlahah, petitum regarding extramarital children can be granted.Keywords: extramarital children, biological child, Constitutional Court Decision, Supreme Court Decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document