BAHASA INGGRIS HUKUM

Diajukan untuk memenuhi tugas pada mata kuliah Bahasa

Indonesia Dosen Pengampu : Rini Apriyani, S.H, M.H

Disusun Oleh:

KELOMPOK 2
1. NUR FADILLAH RISKA RISMAWAN (2208016314)
2. MARDIANA (2208016305)
3. ICHA PARADIBA (2208016280)
4. AGUSTINA BETI RIANES (1908016218)

FAKULTAS HUKUM
UNIVERSITAS
MULAWARMAN SAMARINDA
2022
 CRIMINAL LAW

Describe : The increasing crime rate in society has led to many actions crime which
is one of the things that often happens and is experienced by the community
namely violent crime or persecution. Acts of persecution are not only detrimental
themselves but also to the detriment of others and society in general.
In various references to the law Persecution is a term used by the Bible
Criminal Law Act for crimes against the body. But the Criminal Code is not
contains the meaning of persecution, in the Big Indonesian Dictionary ati
persecution is arbitrary treatment. Definitions found in the Dictionary The
meaning of the Indonesian language is the meaning in a broad sense, which
includes "feelings" or "thoughts". While the persecution referred to in Criminal
law is about the human body. Although the persecution was not there contained in
the Criminal Code, but we can see the meaning of persecution according to
opinion of the clergy, doctrine, and explanation of the minister of justice.
Law works by regulating a person's actions or relationships between
people in society.
The elements of a criminal act are taken as that attitude Usually the
element against the law is not mentioned in the formulation of the offense, but
rather its nature is an absolute requirement for him, so when it is not mentioned
explicitly in its formulation, unlawful nature is considered to always exist
secretly. Because exactly With that nature, the act is prohibited and punishable by
crime.
In addition to the description of the persecution above when connected
with the investigation the crime of persecution is the same other criminal acts that
the process of investigation, prosecution, and trial examination in cases of
criminal acts of child abuse carried out under the Criminal Procedure Code,
except otherwise specified in law number 11 of 2012 concerning the Justice
System Child Crime. Investigation as referred to in Article 1 point (2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code "a series of investigative activities in matters and
according to the method regulated in this law is to seek evidence that clarifies the
crime that occurred and to find the suspect."
This was done none other than so that public order can be achieved and
the welfare of the people who are just and prosperous can be realized in
accordance with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

Case describe : Starting on Sunday July 17 2022 at around 09.00 WIB the victim was
called by a woman who claimed to be Yuni. Yuni expressed her intention to
 become a reseller pillow. Furthermore, Yuni asked to meet with Elastria Widya
Arini as the victim, but Widya couldn't because there was an event in Malang.
But Yuni insisted on asking to meet that day even though it was night it doesn't
matter. Next on Monday the 18th July 2022 approx at 18.00 WIB the victim was
called by Sister Yuni to meet at KFC Jl. Ahmad Yani Surabaya but the victim
could not. Next today Tuesday July 19 2022 at around 19.00 WIB the victim on
Whatsapp by Yuni to be invited to meet at KFC JI. Ahmad Yani Surabaya, at that
time Yuni was invited to meet at the victim's house, however Yuni doesn't want
to.
Next, Widya met Yuni at KFC Jl. Ahmad Yani Surabaya, at that time
Widya was sitting at KFC Jl. Ahmad Yani Surabaya, But at around 20.30 WIB
Yuni asked to move sit outside. After Widya and Yuni sat outside not long then
Riki Sanjaya came with hot coffee and said to the victim with the words "how
come you know me, can I come or not?" Furthermore, Riki Sanjaya's suspicions
immediately appeared sat on the victim's right, but at that time the victim was
about to leave not long after, the suspect Riki Sanjaya splashed the hot coffee he
was carrying towards the victim's face, saying "dog" to the victim, and coffee heat
hit the victim's right cheek.
Then Widya (the victim) stood up but Widya's right hand was twisted by
Riki Sanjaya, then Riki Sanjaya stood up and hit the victim's right shoulder,
then the victim ran to a corner and was followed by the suspect Riki Sanjaya,
carrying Widya's bag, then Widya tried to ask for his bag brought Riki Sanjaya,
but Widya was hit by Riki Sanjaya on the other shoulder right once. Then the
victim ran towards the KFC exit JI. Ahmad Yani Surabaya, followed by suspect
Riki Sanjaya later the victim was told to sit down, but the victim did not want to
because of fear, then the suspect Riki Sanjaya pushed the victim until he fell.
As a result of the abuse committed by Riki Sanjaya, the victim suffered
an abrasion on the little finger of his left hand and suffered an injury. bruise on
the knee of the right leg and a burn on the right cheek.

Source : https://suara-publik.com/detailpost/korban-elastria-widya-hadir-dipersidangan-
sebagai-saksi-kasus-jagoan-neon-riki-sanjaya

Analysis : As a result of VISUM ET REPERTUM No

VER/345/VII/KES.3/2022/Rumkit regarding requests for an examination of
Wounds a.n Victim of Elastria Widya Arini on July 20 2022 with results
examination of a forty-five year old woman found:
 Wound on the little finger of the left hand and bruises on the knee right
leg due to contact with an object blunt.
 Second degree burn on the right cheek caused by contact with hot objects.
  The wound causes disease or obstacles in performing temporary
employment, position, or means of livelihood
As regulated in Article 351 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code, the
elements are as follows:
1. The Element of Anyone What is meant by "everyone" is a person as a
legal subject, that person has committed a criminal act and the criminal act
can be held accountable. In this case what is meant is Riki Sanjaya Bin
Ruslan. Thus the element of Whoever has been fulfilled.
2. The element deliberately committed maltreatment which resulted in
serious injury
Based on the testimony of witnesses, letters and statements of the
defendant as well as the existence of clues as FACTS at trial
 Blisters on the little finger of the left hand and bruises on the knee of the
right leg due to being hit by a blunt object.
 Second degree burn on right cheek due to contact with hot object.
Considering that the wound causes illness or temporary obstruction in
carrying out work, position or livelihood.
Judging from Article 90 of the Criminal Code, what is meant by Serious
Injury is:
 Fall ill or suffer an injury from which there is absolutely no hope of
recovery, or which poses a danger of death;
 Unable to continue work assignments or find a job -loss of one of the five
senses; -has a severe disability;
 Suffering from paralysis; -impaired thinking power of more than four
weeks;
 Abortion or death of a woman's uterus
Judging from the post mortem results, the injuries suffered by the victim
Elastria Widya Arini are not mentioned in Article 90 of the Criminal Code, so
they cannot be referred to as "SERIOUS INJURY". So the element of
"intentionally committing persecution resulting in serious injury" is not fulfilled.
Due to not fulfilling all the elements of Article 351 paragraph (2) of the
Criminal Code, it will consider the Subsidiary indictment of Article 353
paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code with the following elements:
1. The Element of Anyone
2. These elements deliberately carried out the persecution that had been
planned beforehand
The elements deliberately carried out the persecution which was planned in
advance. It can be seen that the law does not provide an explanation of what is
meant by "persecution" but according to "jurisprudence" what is meant by
persecution is intentionally causing bad feelings (suffering), pain or injury.
 It can be seen that in Article 351 paragraph (4) of the Criminal Code,
persecution is equated with intentionally damaging someone's health. This
element implies that the act was realized or desired and the consequences were
known or desired by the defendant.
From the explanation above, it can be concluded that "abuse" is an act of
violence against another party in the form of hitting, slapping, kicking, throwing,
or similar actions that result in pain, injury or discomfort, and the consequences of
this violence.

References :

Book
1. Adami Chazawi. 2013. Kejahatan Terhadap Tubuh dan Nyawa. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers
2. Moeljatno. 2008. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: PT Renika Cipta.
3. P. A. F Lamintang. 2011. Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Bandung: PT Citra
Aditya Bakti.
4. Satjipto Rahardjo. 2009. Hukum dan Perubahan Sosial. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing.

Legeslation:
1. 1945 Constitution
2. Criminal law code
3. The Criminal Procedure Code Number 8 of 1981

Journal :
1. Hisar Situmorang. 2007. Peranan Visum Et Refertum Dalam Tindak Pidana
Penganiayaan Yang Mengankibatkan Kematian. Skripsi. Universitas Sumatera Utara,
Medan.
2. Joko Prastyo Prihantono. 2010. Rekontruksi Perkara Dalam Proses Penyidikan Sebagai
Upaya Mengungkap Tindak Pidana. Skripsi. Universitas Negeri Semarang,
3. Mi Susanto. 2009. Penganiayaan Yang Berakibat Luka Berat Dalam KUHP.
Skripsi. Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel, Surabaya.
4. Risnayani. 2013. Tindak Pidana Penganiayaan. Makalah, Program Studi Pendidikan
Guru Sekolah Dasar Program Strata Satu Fakultas Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan.
Universiatas Tadulako

Web:
https://suara-publik.com/detailpost/korban-elastria-widya-hadir-dipersidangan-
sebagai-saksi kasus-jagoan-neon-riki-sanjaya
 CIVIL LAW CASE

Case Description :

Starting on April 1, 2022, there was a joint agreement between Rina Triana as the cashier
of PT. Ace Hardware Indonesia, who lives on Jl. Surabaya No.10, Kel. Kedungdoro, Tegalsari
District, Surabaya City, East Java, as a plaintiff with PT. Ace Hardware Indonesia, who lives on
Jl. Kejawan Putih No.17, Kel. Kejawan Putih Tambak, Mulyorejo District, Surabaya City, East
Java, as the defendant. The collective agreement agreement is based on the principle of freedom
of contract (freedom contract) which refers to business, and a standard (standard) contract
service is made, also known as (Standard Contract). Therefore, it was obtained the legal fact of a
mutual agreement agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff which occurred for 8
(eight) years and 2 (two) months, which was placed at the cashier's desk which has been
extended every year 4 (four) times and subsequently canceled unilaterally on the June 30, 2020,
this clearly concerns the principle of legal propriety which is material and immaterial in the
sense that the loss of legal certainty protection for Plaintiff Incasu, Article 27 paragraph (2) of
the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Due to the mutual agreement made by The
Defendant and the Plaintiff have been canceled unilaterally on June 30 2020, qualifying as an
unlawful act that is contrary to the provisions stipulated in Article Ah A 1338 of the Civil Code.

Source :

Directory of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia - Surabaya District
Court (DECISION Number 1170/Pdt.G/2022/PN Sby)

Analysis :

In the matter of the joint agreement agreement between Rina Triana as the plaintiff and
PT. Ace Hardware Indonesia as the defendant. The plaintiff has made efforts determined by law
in accordance with the facts and evidence of the plaintiff which are legal and authentic and based
on the agreement of the parties to enter into a mutual agreement agreement, which the defendant
made with the plaintiff, which was canceled unilaterally on June 30, 2020 which qualified as an
unlawful act and contrary to the provisions in Article 1338 of the Civil Code, the essence of
which is that an agreement cannot be withdrawn other than with the agreement of the parties.
Therefore, the collective agreement entered into by the Defendant and the Plaintiff was canceled
unilaterally on June 30 2020, qualified as an unlawful act contrary to the provisions stipulated in
Article n A 1338 of the Civil Code, then the legal obligations of the Defendant departed by law
because it was wrong to issue the loss and compensate for the loss it incurred with the
assumption that the basic position of the Plaintiff in this matter was economically, socially and
politically far very weak compared to the Defendant's so that the function of law must be
interpreted as an instrument to protect the Plaintiff's rights as a weak party and also based the
principle of Pancasila justice, it is appropriate and/or appropriate for the Defendant to
compensate the Plaintiff for losses.

The Defendant's actions very clearly fulfilled the elements of an unlawful act regulated in
the provisions of Article 1365 of the Civil Code, namely :

● There is an illegal act :

The Defendant's actions contradicted the provisions stipulated in Article 1338 of the Civil Code

● There is an error :
The mutual agreement agreement made by the Defendant and the Plaintiff, was canceled
unilaterally on June 30 2020

● There are losses incurred :

Since June 30, 2020 when the Plaintiff was 36 years old until he was 57 years old (Vide,
Government Regulation Number 45 of 2015) as the basis for losses regarding the principle of
legal propriety which are material and immaterial :

● There is a causal relationship between the act and the loss :

For the actions of the Defendant, he entered into a collective agreement that he made with the
Plaintiff, canceled unilaterally on June 30, 2020 at the age of 36 for the Plaintiff until he entered
the age of 57 (Vide, Government Regulation Number 45 of 2015), qualified as an act against
competition law with the provisions Article 1338 of the Civil Code resulting in a loss for the
Plaintiff regarding the principle of legal propriety which is material and immaterial, Incasu,
Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The impact of the actions of the Defendant who made a joint agreement with the Plaintiff,
was canceled unilaterally on June 30, 2020 and compensated for material and immaterial losses
that arose when the Plaintiff was 36 years old to 57 years old (Vide, Government Regulation
Number 45 of 2015), is Rp. . 1,383,765,538.00 (one billion three hundred eighty three million
seven hundred sixty five thousand five hundred thirty eight rupiah), with the following details:

Material Loss:

1. The plaintiff cannot enjoy his rights to his obligations in a decent living, since the mutual
agreement entered into by the defendant and the plaintiff was unilaterally canceled on
June 30, 2020 (Vide, Article 15 paragraph (2) Government Regulation Number 45 of
2015) is in the amount of IDR 4,375,479 x 12 months x 21 years with a total of IDR
 1,102,620,708.00 (one billion one hundred two million six hundred twenty thousand
seven hundred eight rupiah);
2. The plaintiff has not received social rights protection guarantees since the collective
agreement made by the defendant and the plaintiff was unilaterally canceled on June 30
2020 (Vide, Article 14 of Law number 24 of 2011) amounting to Rp.4,375,479 x 12
months 21 years x 4% for a total of IDR 44,104,828.00 (forty four million one hundred
four thousand eight hundred and twenty eight rupiahs.
3. The plaintiff did not receive the guarantee for the protection of the rights required as a
member of the financial institution pension fund (DPLK) since the mutual agreement
entered into by the defendant and the plaintiff on April 1, 2012 (Vide, Article 24
paragraph (3) of Law Number 11 of 1992) is Rp. 4,375,479 x 12 months x 29 years x 9%
for a total of Rp. 137,040,002.00 (one hundred and thirty seven million forty thousand
two rupiahs)

Immaterial Losses :

The Plaintiff must bear the psychological burden on the family and the surrounding
community, so that the loss which if calculated is unlimited, however in this case the Plaintiff
demands compensation from the Defendant in the amount of Rp. 100,000,000.00 (one hundred
million rupiah). The lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff at trial was based on the provisions of Article
14 of the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2015 Concerning
Procedures for Settlement of Simple Lawsuits, the Plaintiff requests the Panel of Judges at the
Surabaya District Court regarding a claim against the Defendant to be examined according to the
usual procedure for get to restore or restore the Plaintiff's rights to the actual situation, as
according to Yahya Harahap (page 418), which states: "Exception in general means an
exception, but in the context of procedural law, it means a rebuttal or rebuttal aimed at matters
relating to the terms or formalities of the lawsuit cannot be accepted by (the Defendant).

Therefore, the need for an equal law as required to provide equal protection before the
law, which becomes the domain provisions of Article 1365 of the Civil Code as the main essence
of an agreement (contractual) made by the Defendant, and was canceled unilaterally on the 30th
June 2020, this is contrary to the provisions stipulated in Article 1338 of the Civil Code.

The Plaintiff requests the Panel of Judges at the Surabaya District Court which is
adjudicating to state that the Defendant immediately fulfills his obligations, so it is appropriate if
the Defendant is sentenced to pay forced money (dwangsom) for the delay in carrying out the
decision in the aquo case in the amount of Rp. 10,000,000.00 (ten million rupiah) for each day
delay in carrying out a decision that has permanent legal force in this case. To ensure that the
Plaintiff's lawsuit does not go to waste, we request the Panel of Judges at the Surabaya District
Court to place conservatoir beslag and revindicatoir beslag against the Defendant's property
which will be carried out as soon as possible on land assets and buildings owned by the
Defendant:
The Plaintiff requests the Head of the Surabaya District Court, the Panel of Judges who tried,
examined and decided on this case to render a decision as follows:

1. Granted the Plaintiff's lawsuit in its entirety;

2. Declare the actions of the Defendant as unlawful, with all the legal consequences.
3. Declare that the plaintiff's evidence is valid and authentic.
4. Punish the Defendant to pay compensation money, because the mistake of issuing the
loss caused directly and simultaneously material and immaterial to the Plaintiff in the
amount of IDR 1,383,765,538.00 (one billion three hundred eighty three million seven
hundred sixty five thousand five hundred and three twenty eight rupiah)
5. Punished the Defendant to pay forced money (dwangsom) for the delay in carrying out
the decision in this case in the amount of Rp. 10,000,000.00 (ten million rupiah) for each
day of delay in carrying out the decision which has permanent legal force in this case.
6. Declare legal and valuable confiscations (conservatoir beslag) and marital confiscation
(revindicatoir beslag) that have been placed on the Defendant's assets, both movable and
immovable property belonging to the Defendant, the value of which is determined by the
Court Bailiff
7. Declare that the decision of this case can be carried out immediately (uitvoerbaar bij
voorraad) even if there are verset, appeal, cassation or other legal remedies: 8 Punish the
Defendant to pay the costs incurred in this case:

Based on the plaintiff's lawsuit, the defendant gave the answer in essence as follows :

IN EXCEPTION :

 THE SURABAYA STATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE

COMPETENCE IN EXAMINING AND TRYING A QUO CASE
In the Petitum Lawsuit, in essence the Plaintiff explained that there was a legal
relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on a Mutual Agreement since
April 1 2012, serving as Cashier (Cashier) by the Defendant the legal relationship was
terminated unilaterally on June 30 2020 2020. That the position of Cashier ( Cashier) in
general and has become common knowledge filled by employees or the existence of
industrial relations between workers and employers which means that disputes between
the Plaintiff and the Defendant are subject to the rules in Industrial Relations and not to
civil disputes in the Civil Code (KUHPerdata) ) according to the principle of Lex
specialis derogat legi generali. That it is necessary for us to explain here, that the
Collective Agreement which forms the basis of the Plaintiff's lawsuit is not a general
agreement as stipulated in the Civil Code but an Employment Relations Agreement as
stipulated in Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower: Whereas the Employment
Relations Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant clearly results in the
 dispute that arises must be resolved in an Industrial Relations Dispute as referred to in the
laws and regulations in the field of Manpower.
Whereas this clearly shows that the dispute between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant is an Industrial Relations Dispute. Whereas referring to Law Number 2 of
2004 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (UU PPHI), namely:
a. Article 2 of the PPHI Law, which reads:
Types of Industrial Relations Disputes include rights disputes, interest disputes,
employment termination disputes, and trade/labor union disputes within one company
only.
b. Article 5 of the PPHI Law, the defendant:
In the event that the settlement through conciliation or mediation does not reach an
agreement, then one of the parties can file a lawsuit with the Industrial Relations
Court.
c. Article 56 of the PPHI Law, which reads:
The Industrial Relations Court has the duty and authority to examine and decide:
 at the first level regarding rights disputes
 at the first and final levels recognize a conflict of interest
 at the first level regarding disputes over termination of employment:
 at the first and final levels regarding disputes between trade unions/labor
unions within one company.

Whereas as described by the Defendant above, it is clear that the Surabaya

District Court as the General Court has no authority to examine and adjudicate the a quo
case because the a quo case is an Industrial Relations Case and the authority to examine
and adjudicate is the Absolute Authority of the Industrial Relations Court. So it is
appropriate that the Panel of Judges examining and adjudicating the a quo case declares
that the Surabaya District Court, as an absolute competency, has no authority to try this
case.

 THE SURABAYA STATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVE

COMPETENCE IN EXAMINING AND TRIED CIVIL CASES A TO
UNLAWFUL ACTIONS (PMH) WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS DOMICILE IN
WEST JAKARTA
Whereas after examining the plaintiff's claim in the a quo case, it is appropriate to
state that the Surabaya District Court did not evaluate and adjudicate the a quo case with
considerations based on Article 118 paragraph (1) HIR. And according to Book II of the
Adminstrative and Technical Guidelines for General Civil and Special Civil Courts, 2007
Edition, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia in 2008, in part D, states that the
District Court evaluates lawsuits in its legal area including:
 1. Where the Defendant lives or where the Defendant actually lives (if the Defendant
does not know where he lives).
2. The residence of one of the Defendants, if there is more than one Defendant,
whose residence is not in the jurisdiction of the District Court according to the
Plaintiff's choice.
3. The main defendant is domiciled, if the relationship between the Defendant is as
the debtor and the guarantor.
4. The residence of the Plaintiff or one of the Plaintiffs.

Whereas the fact is that the Defendant resides/is domiciled at Jalan Putri Kencana
Number 1, Kembangan Selatan Village, Kembangan District, West Jakarta so that the
authority to examine and adjudicate the a quo case is because the Defendant's residence
or where the Defendant actually resides is in West Jakarta or is a relative competence
from the West Jakarta District Court to examine and adjudicate the a quo case.

 THE PLAINTIFF'S LAW IS NEBIS IN IDEM

After reading and understanding the contents of the plaintiff's lawsuit in the a quo
case, it can be concluded that the lawsuit is Nebis in Idem or a repetition of a case with
the same object and subject and has been decided and has permanent legal force (in
kracht van gewijsde). Whereas the basis for the Plaintiff's lawsuit addressed to the
Defendant in the a quo case is essentially a Claim for Material and Immaterial
Compensation in the amount of Rp. 1,383,765,538 (one billion three hundred eighty three
million seven hundred sixty five thousand five hundred thirty eight rupiah) ) as a result of
Termination of Legal Relations carried out by the Defendant on 30 June 2020.

IN EXCEPTION:

Rejecting the Defendant's Exception Entirely: IN THE SUBJECT OF THE CASE

1. Granted the Plaintiff's lawsuit in part

2. Declare the termination of the working relationship between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant as of June 30 2020;
3. Ordering the Defendant to pay severance pay, long service pay and compensation money
to the Plaintiff in the amount of Rp. 49,459,200.00 (forty-nine million four consequences
and termination of employment in cash and one hundred and fifty-nine thousand two
hundred rupiahs) ):
4. Rejecting the Plaintiff's claim for other than and the rest;
5. Charge case costs arising from this case to the state
 In the a quo lawsuit are Rina Triana (Plaintiff) and PT Ace Hardware Indonesia Tbk
(Defendant). While the object in the a quo case is basically a matter of compensation
claims/demands for unlawful acts (PMH), namely Termination of Employment (PHK). From the
subject and object side, it shows that there are similarities between the Subject and Object in the
a quo lawsuit and the Subject and Object of the Lawsuit in a case that has been decided at the
Industrial Relations Court at the Surabaya District Court with Case Register Number 55/Pdt.Sus-
PHI/2021/PN Sby Jo. Supreme Court Cassation Decision with Case Register Number 180
K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2022.

PLAINTIFF LAWSUIT ERROR IN PERSONA

The Plaintiff's lawsuit can be charged with seduction which is Error in Persona, namely
including Ir. Hartanto Djasman as the Director of PT. Ace hardware Indonesia is in a quo
problem. Based on the Deed of Establishment Number: 17 dated 3 February 1995 made before
Benny Kristianto, S.H. notary in Jakarta, as last amended by the Deed of Statement of Decision
of the Shareholders of PT Ace Hardware Indonesia, Tbk. Number: 33 dated 8 June 2022, made
before Eliwaty Tjitra, S.H. a notary in Jakarta explained that Ir. Hartanto Djasman is not in the
composition of the Board of Directors of PT Ace Hardware Indonesia, Tbk. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's lawsuit has an error in persona, so it is fitting that the Plaintiff's lawsuit by the Panel of
Judges be declared unacceptable.

 THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWSUIT IS BLOCK AND UNCLEAR (OBSCUUR LIBEL)

After reading and knowing the Plaintiff's lawsuit in the a quo case, it turns out
that the content of the lawsuit was not systematically prepared, was not accurate, was not
coherent and contradictory to each other, while the content and the lawsuit in the
Plaintiff's lawsuit were clearly contradictory to each other (out of sync), by the events in
the lawsuit. The plaintiff is qualified as an obscure lawsuit (obscuur libel).
Therefore, the Defendant requests the Panel of Judges examining this case to be
willing to declare a rejection of the Plaintiff's claim or at least declare that the Plaintiff's
claim cannot be accepted (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard).

IN THE ESSENTIAL OF THE CASE

IN CONPENSION

The legal law between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has stipulated that the PKWT will
end on June 30 2020, which means that the Termination of Employment does not end due to the
unilateral Termination of Employment by the Defendant but has been mutually agreed upon
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of the implementation of the PKWT nesi ah
 A which has consequences according to According to the law, PKWT will expire on June
30, 2020. Based on these provisions, it is very reasonable if the Plaintiff and Defendant terminate
their employment relationship because the term of the work agreement between the Plaintiff and
Defendant has ended on June 30, 2020.

Therefore, the plaintiff's counterclaim/counterclaim defendant was rejected and the

counterclaim plaintiff/counterdefendant's claim was rejected, then the plaintiff
counterclaim/counterclaim defendant was declared the defeated party, then the plaintiff
counterclaim/defendant counterclaim must be punished to pay the costs incurred in this case
which the amount as stated in the verdict. And punishing the Convention Plaintiff/Reconvention
Defendant to pay the court costs which until now has been calculated at Rp. 465,000 (four
hundred sixty five thousand rupiah).

Reference :

Legislation :

1. Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Regulations (UUPA)

2. Law Number 2 of 2017 concerning Collective Labor Agreements (PKB)
3. Law Number 18 of 2019 concerning International Agreements
4. Civil Code (KUHPerdata)
5. Government Regulation Number 37 of 2021 concerning Dispute Resolution Through
Mediation in a Mutual Agreement Agreement.
6. Government Regulation Number 45 of 2015
7. Article 14 Law Number 24 of 2011
8. Article 24 paragraph (3) of Law Number 11 of 1999
9. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 49 of 2009 concerning the Second
Amendment to
10. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 1986 concerning General Courts jis.
11. Law Number 2 of 2004 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI Law
12. Law No. 20 of 1947 concerning Repeat Trials in Java and Madura (hereinafter referred to
as the PUJDM Law

Book :

1. Budiono, H. (2016). Indonesian Contract Law. Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada.

2. Latif, A. (2017). Legal agreement. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
3. Hadikusumo, R. (2018). Legal agreement. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
4. Sihombing, D. (2018). Legal agreement. Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada.
5. Subekti, R. (2019). Legal agreement. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
 6. Soekanto, S. (2018). Legal agreement. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
7. Putra, B. S. (2018). Legal agreement. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
8. Kurniawan, I. (2018). Legal agreement. Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada.
9. Agung, A. (2018). Legal agreement. Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada
10. Mulyadi, M. (2018). Legal Aspects of the Agreement. London: Alumni

Journal :

1. R. Susilo, "Consumer Protection in Collective Agreement Agreements in the Financial

Services Industry," Journal of Business Law, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 1-14, 2019.
2. Wahyuni, Y., & Kurniawan, R. (2019). Legal Implementation of Collective Agreement
Agreement (PKB) in Indonesia. Journal of Law IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 26(1), 63-74.
3. Tantular, M. A., & Oktavia, Y. (2020). Analysis of the Collective Agreement Agreement
in the Perspective of Civil Law. Journal of Law and Development, 50(3), 317-332.
4. Putri, E. F., & Suherman, H. (2020). Legal Analysis of Collective Agreements (PKB) in
the Health Sector. Journal of Ius Constituendum, 17(1), 36-52.
5. Mutiara, A., & Wahyudi, H. (2021). Legal Protection for Parties Who Are Consumers in
the Collective Agreement (PKB). Journal of Law Ius Quia Iustum, 28(1), 31-44.

CASES OF ISLAMIC LAW

Describe : Basically, humans live in pairs, complement each other, and work together to create
social life. In life, relationships between people are to some extent connected by their social
desires. The desire of each person inspires everyone that it is necessary to find a life partner,
that is, to get married. The purpose of marriage is to create a harmonious life for a man and a
woman so that they can live a happily ever after family life.
Marriage Law No. 1 of 1975 aims to establish a harmonious family in accordance with
the One and Only Godhead. The contradictions between men and women and the changes in
their inner temperament often trigger family crises, turn the world into conflicts, turn the world
into disputes, and turn family relationships into hatred that must be tolerated and resolved.
But in fact, not all individuals can succeed in producing ambitious families. This matter
is related to the existence of divorce, be it divorce talaq or divorce through a judge. Like
marriage, divorce is a complicated process. Such as emotional, economic, social and formal
recognition of society by applicable law. There are many factors that cause divorce, including
this endemic that results in an entire country. The risk of its spread does not just attack the
health side but all areas of life.
Efforts to cut off its spread by making social distancing policies or movements at home
with the inauguration of Presidential Decree no. 12 of 2020 defining non-natural disasters as
the transmission of Covid 19 throughout the country. Some areas that were originally
designated as red zones have implemented large-scale social restrictions (PSBB). Similarly,
Surabaya also issued Mayor Decree No. 16 regarding PSBB Guidelines for Handling the
Corona Virus (COVID-19) in Surabaya City in 2020, which was later replaced by Mayor
Decree Number 19 in 2020. In accordance with the amendment of the Mayor of Surabaya
Number 16 of 2020. Perwali Guideline No. 19 of 2020 concerning extensive social distancing
for the prevention of Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Surabaya City.
Given that the PSBB takes place in the strategic economic sector, this will not only
have an impact on the economy, but also penetrate the Indonesian social sector. Restrictions
on religious activities, public places, social and cultural, traffic, etc. that make people spend a
lot of time at home. Some people may find it interesting to spend time at home because home
is a safe place. But for some people, spending time at home is an activity that is considered
unpleasant so it is not uncommon to cause quarrels between couples that lead to divorce.
There are many factors that cause divorce during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as
economic factors, social factors, etc. Economic factors are the main cause of the COVID-19
pandemic, such as the cessation of layoffs and declining family economic activity. to divorce.
In Surabaya itself, divorce cases have increased since the beginning of the pandemic. Just as
divorce cases in Surabaya Religious Court recorded early in the COVID-19 pandemic, an
estimated 40 to 50 divorce lawsuits won claims from wives in a single day, and the number of
divorces increased in June. which was very significant as many as 1394 cases and in July
jumped to 1532 divorce cases dominated by wife lawsuits.
Source : . 3449/Pdt.G/2020/PA.Sby
Analysis :
Law No. 1 of 1974 Jo Article 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 concerning
the Implementation of Law No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage" has mentioned several
reasons for being allowed to propose divorce in Court.
The reasons in Article 39 paragraph 2 of Law No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage Jo
Article 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 concerning the Implementation of Law
No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage are as follows:
1. One of the parties commits adultery or becomes an incurable bully, compactor,
gambler, etc.
2. One party leaves the other for 2 (two) consecutive years without the permission of
the other party and without a valid reason or because of other things beyond its ability
3. One of the parties shall receive a prison sentence of 5 (five) years or a more severe
sentence after the marriage takes place
4. One party commits cruelty or grave harm to the other
5. One of the parties has a disability or, illness that results in inability to carry out his
obligations as husband / wife
6. Between husband and wife there are constant disputes and quarrels and there is no
hope of living in harmony again in the household

Especially for Muslims, in addition to the above pretexts, there are two other reasons
for divorce that are clearly listed in Article 116 of the KHI, namely:
1. "The husband violates talaq-talaq
2. Conversion or apostasy that causes
disharmony in the household."
During the COVID-19 pandemic, people know that the divorce rate is increasing,
especially in the Surabaya Religious Court.
1. Economics
"Article 34 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage" explains
that the husband has a responsibility to protect his wife and provide family life according to
his ability. The rules in the Marriage Law do not specify the amount of income to be paid,
only said according to the ability of the husband. Deteriorating economic conditions during the
pandemic have been a major source of relationship conflict. Many women experience this kind
of conflict due to increased pressure on women during the pandemic and the emotional
instability of women's status. This economic factor is arguably the factor that significantly
influenced the surge in divorces during the Covid-19 pandemic.
 As is known that there are so many mass layoffs and changing life patterns so that from
small people to large entrepreneurs are affected.
Economic factors contributed to the reason for divorce in the Surabaya Religious
Court. during the Pandemic period had a fairly high number of 2,127 cases. This factor can be
said to be the dominant reason for divorce at the Surabaya Religious Court during the Covid-
19 pandemic.
2. No Responsibility
When the husband of one party does not really care about his wife, the lack of
responsibility of both parties is not a factor in divorce which is the responsibility of a husband
and vice versa the wife does not want to do her obligations as a wife because she feels that the
husband's responsibilities are not fulfilled. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the income
obtained must have been drastically reduced so that the parties concerned felt that the
responsibilities that should have been fulfilled were not fulfilled. Factors of irresponsibility in
religious courts totaled 236 cases.
3. No Harmony
Disharmonious factors can easily divorce. This factor can be called danger, since
unresolved disputes can exhaust the spouse's spouse and allow them to file for divorce in
court. The main reason is that he is easily influenced by people who are not strong in his
partner, and often cause quarrels and lack harmony in them.
The factors that encourage divorce where the reasons for divorce that have been
determined in the law are in "Article 39 paragraph 2 of Law No. 1 of 1974 concerning
Marriage Jo Article 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 concerning the
Implementation of Law No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage" where there are six welds
 Divorcees are allowed to file for divorce. And plus two more reasons in the
Compilation of Islamic Law in Article 116.

Analysis of Judges' Considerations in Deciding Divorce Applications Affected by Covid-19

When judges try cases, they play a very important role in the judicial system. Judges must have
a solid legal foundation in order to make the fairest decisions without deviating from the law.
The case concerns religious procedural law and civil procedural law. Ijtihad hakim is needed to
ensure that the law has multiple interpretations in different situations, as a result of which each
issue can be resolved in harmony through legal law, there are no wrong legal verdicts, and there
are no aspects that feel burdened. Basically, the verdict proved fair, and the judge needed to
evaluate and study the facts and figures. This is done through evidence, asking what is important
and what is not important, and re-examining the parties about testimony and facts. In a judge's
decision, legal factors must be considered to reach a conclusion as to whether the decision made
is sufficient to explain the reasons.

The same is the case with divorce cases affected by Covid-19 that the author has exemplified,
namely "Decision No. 3449/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby, Decision No. 3137/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby, and
Decision No. 4261/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby." Judging from the development of several
considerations of the judge's legal arguments, the legal considerations made by the judge in this
case divorce affected by Covid-19 above are "Article 39 paragraph 2 of Law No. 1 of 1974 jo.
Article 19 letter f of Government Regulation Number 9 of 1975 and Article 116 letter f of the
Compilation of Islamic Law". Where the main problem in the three rulings is an economic
problem where one party disputes the decrease in income provided due to the Covid-19
Pandemic.

In the course of the trial itself, the Judge has also sought peace by mediating and advising the
parties to discontinue their intention to divorce in accordance with "Article 82 paragraphs (1) and
(4) of Law Number 7 Year

1989 which has been amended by Law No. 3 of 2006", but in all three cases namely "case No.
3449/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby, Decision No. 3137/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby, and Decision No.
4261/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby" did not run and all continued their cases because the decision was
unanimous and could not be changed to continue the divorce case.

The legal basis used by the judge to determine the three cases is Article 19(f) PP No. 9 of 1975,
the basis for divorce is the existence of ongoing disputes and disputes between spouses, resulting
in the unavailability of hope for a family in the harmony inhabited. The conflict that persists
between men and women leaving home is increasingly on the verge of collapse, where the man
or woman feels tormented and far from the feelings of calm, tranquility and tranquility as the
basis of marriage. The causes of disputes and disputes are also different, and the types are also
different, including financial pressure from the family, which may be due to different lifestyles
and viewpoints, or may be due to different religious lives.

Regarding the use of divorce propositions according to "Article 19(f) of PP No. 9 of 1975 and
Article 116(f) of the Civil Code", there are two views that while still living in ongoing disputes
and disputes between husband and wife. The absence of hope when life is brighter. The first
opinion is that the reason for divorce is just an example, and it can file for divorce for any
reason, but because of this, spouses no longer live in harmony. The second opinion is that the
mention of these reasons is limited and therefore cannot be added to any other pretext for
divorce. This is in line with the value of enduring marriage and the legislature's willingness to
make divorce difficult for certain reasons.

The judge used "Article 19 letter (f) of Government Regulation Number 9 of 1975 juncto Article
116 letter (f)" According to the KHI, the pretext is that there are continuous quarrels between
husband and wife, and loss of hope for harmony at home, all this can lead to quarrels and house
quarrels. In case No. 3449/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby, Decision No. 3137/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby, and
Decision No. 4261/Pdt.G/2020/PA. Sby, economic problems due to the Covid-19 Endemic
trigger the formation of conflicts and quarrels in the household, and can end in divorce, the
judge provided the appropriate legal basis. Article 19 letter (f) Government Regulation Number
9 of 1975 juncto Article 116 letter (f) Compilation of Islamic Law.

Reference :

Laws and Regulations

Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage

Law Number 3 of 2006 concerning amendments to Law Number 7 of 1989 concerning Religious
Courts.

Government Regulation Number 9 of 1975 concerning the Implementation of Law Number 1 of

1975 concerning Marriage.

Presidential Instruction Number 1 of 1991 concerning the Compilation of Islamic Law.

Journal
Aris Tristanto, 2020. Divorce during the Covid-19 Pandemic in a Science Perspective
Social", Socio Informa, Vol. 6 No. 3.
 Nur Rohim Yunus, Anissa Rezki, 2020. Lockdown Implementation Policy in
Anticipation of the Spread of Corona Virus Covid-19, SALAM: Journal of Social & Culture,
Vol. 7 No. 3.
Romlah, Siti. 2020. Covid 19 and Its Impact on Workers in Indonesia. Vol4, No1
(2012).