Jurnal Hukum Magnum Opus

Reconsidering Legal Protection: The Urgent Need to Regulate the Retirement Age of Worker

2026-01-07T09:50:32+00:00

The absence of a national legal norm that explicitly regulates the retirement age of workers in Indonesia has created a normative vacuum that generates legal uncertainty, enables arbitrary practices in employment relations, and increases the potential for industrial relations disputes. This study aims to analyze how the state should exercise its role in providing legal protection for workers and to explain the urgency of regulating the retirement age within the framework of Indonesian labor law. The research employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, including an examination of retirement-age regulation in selected ASEAN countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. The findings show that workers constitute a vulnerable group requiring state protection, and that the normative vacuum regarding retirement age has resulted in inconsistencies and discriminatory practices in company-level retirement policies. The divergence between the retirement age set by companies and the requirements of the Pension Benefit Program under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2015 further contributes to legal uncertainty concerning workers’ rights to pension benefits. Comparative analysis demonstrates that several ASEAN countries have adopted clear, uniform retirement-age standards as instruments of legal and social protection. The novelty of this study lies in its normative argument that the Indonesian state, as a Pancasila-based rule-of-law state, must establish a clear, firm, and legally certain national retirement-age standard as a form of preventive legal protection and as a mechanism to ensure workers’ welfare in old age.

Legal Protection of BOT Agreement in Korea Town Project: Supreme Court Decision Number 600K/Pdt/2018

2026-02-05T01:28:05+00:00

This study analyzes legal protection in Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) agreements through examination of Supreme Court Decision No. 600K/Pdt/2018 concerning The High End City Korea Town (THECKT) project. of Indonesia Number 600K/Pdt/2018. The purpose of this research is to analyze the application of the principles of justice and balance in the legal relationship between the landowner and the investor, as well as to assess the extent of legal protection granted to the parties in the event of unilateral termination of the BOT agreement. The research employs a normative juridical method with statutory, case, and comparative approaches. The data consist of primary and secondary legal materials, along with relevant non-legal materials. The analysis is conducted qualitatively using deductive reasoning. The findings reveal that unilateral termination without clear legal grounds violates the principle of legal protection and may cause economic losses to investors. The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that BOT agreements must be interpreted through the pri. Unilateral termination of the agreement without clear legal grounds constitutes a violation of the principle of legal protection and may cause economic losses to the investor. Therefore, the application of the principle of justice as proposed by John Rawls’ theory of justice and the principle of balance in contract law serves as an essential foundation to create a fair and proportional legal relationship in the implementation of BOT agreements in Indonesia.

Legal Analysis of Smart Contracts as Electronic Agreements under Civil and Electronic Transactions Law

2026-02-05T01:30:32+00:00

The development of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and blockchain has given rise to disruptive innovations in the form of smart contracts. On the one hand, this technology offers superior efficiency, autonomy, transparency, and security compared to conventional contracts. On the other hand, the deterministic, automatic, and rigid nature of the code poses fundamental challenges to the Indonesian civil law framework, particularly the Civil Code (KUHPerdata), which is flexible and prioritizes principles such as good faith and protection against defects of consent (wilsgebreken). This study aims to analyze the position of smart contracts as valid agreements according to the requirements in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, as well as to examine how the Electronic Information and Transaction Law (EIT Law) and its implementing regulations, including the latest recognition in the Financial Sector Development and Strengthening Law (P2SK Law), provide legitimacy and legal certainty. This study uses a normative legal research method with a statute approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the study show that smart contracts can fulfill the requirements for a valid agreement (Article 1320 of the Civil Code) with the following caveats: the main challenge lies in fulfilling the subjective requirements (competence and agreement), which require an off-chain identity verification mechanism and separation between the agreement (natural language) and the code (execution tool).

The Business Judgment Rule Limiting State-Owned Enterprise Directors’ Liability After the SOE Law Amendment

2026-01-28T10:16:38+00:00

This study examines the function of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) as a boundary of legal liability for the management organs of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in Indonesia following the recent amendments to the State-Owned Enterprises Law. Using a normative juridical research method with statutory and conceptual approaches, this research analyzes the normative foundation of BJR within Indonesian corporate law, the implications of regulatory changes on the responsibilities of directors, commissioners, and supervisory boards, and the extent to which BJR can serve as a shield against civil and criminal liability. The findings show that BJR, grounded in fiduciary duties under the Limited Liability Company Law, provides legal protection for business decisions made in good faith, without conflicts of interest, based on adequate information, and within the scope of authority. However, the removal of the provision excluding SOE organs from the category of state officials has widened potential liability and necessitated greater professional accountability. The study further reveals differences in the application of BJR between Persero-type SOEs, which are fully governed by private corporate law, and Perum-type SOEs, which remain tied to public administrative principles, creating risks of disharmony with anti-corruption and state finance laws. The research concludes that the ideal model for implementing BJR in SOEs requires standardized risk assessment procedures, strengthened oversight documentation, and harmonization of the SOE Law, Company Law, Anti-Corruption Law, and State Finance Law to ensure a balance between managerial protection and state accountability in managing public assets.

The Role of Judges in Criminal Case Evidence : A Comparative Study between Indonesia and Thailand

2026-02-11T04:52:02+00:00

This study aims to analyze the role of judges in the criminal evidence system based on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana/KUHAP) and the Criminal Procedure Code of Thailand, as well as to identify the fundamental differences arising from the characteristics of each country’s judicial system. This research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches through document analysis of relevant literature and regulations. The findings indicate that Indonesia adopts the negative statutory evidentiary system (negatief wettelijk bewijstheorie), as regulated in Article 183 of the KUHAP, which requires at least two valid pieces of evidence accompanied by the judge’s conviction. The role of judges is active but remains within a strict procedural framework. Meanwhile, Thailand applies a mixed adversarial–inquisitorial system with a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt without a minimum evidentiary requirement. The Thai Criminal Procedure Code grants judges broad authority to examine facts, question witnesses, and order the collection of additional evidence, as stipulated in Sections 228, 229, and 235. A comparison of the two systems shows that Thailand positions judges as more dominant truth-finders, whereas Indonesia emphasizes a balance between formal legality and judicial conviction. These findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the structural and philosophical implications of both systems in the enforcement of criminal justice.