Politica: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam

Regulating Digital Health Services in Indonesia: Legal Challenges, Liability Issues, and the Protection of Patient Rights

2025-11-23T12:46:17+08:00

The rapid development of information technology has facilitated the emergence of digital health services such as telemedicine, e-health, and mobile health, which enhance efficiency, accessibility, and the overall quality of healthcare delivery. However, this digital transformation also generates legal challenges that necessitate clear regulatory frameworks, particularly concerning the protection of patients’ personal data, the determination of medical liability in remote healthcare interactions, and the validity of electronic evidence in legal processes. This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing technology-based healthcare services in Indonesia and to identify the obstacles encountered in their implementation and enforcement. The research employs a normative juridical method with a statutory approach, drawing upon a literature review of relevant regulations, including the Health Law, the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, and implementing regulations issued by authorized institutions. The findings indicate that although Indonesia has established a legal framework for digital health services, the regulations remain sectoral and lack comprehensive standards, especially regarding medical liability, patient data protection, and oversight of digital platforms. Furthermore, implementation challenges persist due to weak inter-agency coordination, limited digital security infrastructure, and low legal and digital literacy among service providers and users. The study concludes that regulatory harmonization and the formulation of specific legislation are essential to ensure legal certainty, accountability, and the protection of patients’ rights within Indonesia’s digital healthcare ecosystem.

Dari Dosen ke Advokat: Telaah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 150/PUU-XXII/2024 dalam Perspektif Siyasah Qadhaiyyah

2025-12-11T13:20:39+08:00

Civil servant lecturers are required to fulfil the Tri Dharma of Higher Education, including community engagement, which may take the form of providing legal assistance. In practice, this obligation encounters a legal barrier because Article 3 paragraph (1)(c) and Article 20 paragraph (2) of Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates prohibit civil servants from practising as advocates. This restriction has triggered debate over whether law lecturers, as civil servants, may exercise their constitutional rights to participate in advocacy work. This study seeks to examine the Constitutional Court’s legal reasoning in Decision Number 150/PUU-XXII/2024, which authorises civil servant lecturers to act as advocates within certain limits, and to assess the relevance of this decision through the lens of siyasah qadhaiyyah. Employing a qualitative research design supported by a statute approach and analytical approach, the study analyses pertinent primary and secondary legal sources. The findings reveal that the Constitutional Court issued a conditionally unconstitutional ruling on the contested provisions of the Advocate Law, clarifying that civil servant lecturers may undertake advocacy activities solely for pro bono services through university legal aid institutions. This ruling affirms the protection of constitutional rights guaranteed in Articles 28C and 28D of the 1945 Constitution and resonates with principles of substantive justice in siyasah qadhaiyyah, particularly the pursuit of the public good (maslahah ammah) through the involvement of legal scholars. The study concludes that constitutional justice and Islamic legal ethics can be synergised to balance individual rights with the professional responsibilities inherent to state officials.

Politik Hukum Presidential Threshold di Indonesia: Arah Pergeseran Konstitusional Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2025-12-14T19:14:47+08:00

The debate over the presidential threshold in Indonesia’s constitutional system has persisted for years. However, most existing studies tend to focus either on its normative justification or its electoral consequences, without comprehensively situating the policy within the framework of legal politics and its constitutional implications following the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Addressing this research gap, this study aims to analyze the legal-political dynamics of the presidential threshold in Indonesia, tracing its development from its initial formulation to its eventual annulment by the Constitutional Court. This study employs a normative legal research method, utilizing statutory, conceptual, and analytical approaches. The research is based on an examination of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which are qualitatively analyzed to assess the policy’s underlying rationale and its compatibility with constitutional principles. The findings reveal that the presidential threshold was originally designed as an instrument to simplify presidential nominations and promote governmental stability. However, in practice, it has instead narrowed political representation, strengthened party oligarchy, and intensified political polarization. The study further demonstrates that governmental stability in Indonesia has been shaped more by post-election negotiations and the practice of presidential coalition-building than by the threshold mechanism itself. The Constitutional Court’s decision to invalidate Article 222 of the Election Law signifies a fundamental shift in the design of presidential candidacy, affirming that the presidential threshold is incompatible with the principles of popular sovereignty, proportionality, and political equality. The implications of this study underscore the need to restructure the presidential nomination system in a more inclusive and constitutionally grounded manner, while encouraging electoral law reforms that prioritize substantive democratic values over formal stability considerations.

Tanggung Jawab Notaris terhadap Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang Didasarkan pada Risalah Rapat Palsu

2025-12-17T18:11:18+08:00

The Deed of Statement of Decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders constitutes an authentic deed with perfect evidentiary value as regulated in Article 1868 of the Civil Code. In practice, there are still cases where a Deed of Statement of Decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders is drawn up based on meeting minutes containing false information, which gives rise to legal problems concerning the legal consequences of the deed and the liability of the notary as a public official. This study aims to analyze the legal consequences of a Deed of Statement of Decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders made on the basis of meeting minutes containing false information, as well as the forms of notarial liability arising from the preparation of such a deed. This research employs a normative legal research method using statutory and case approaches. The data used consist of secondary data in the form of laws and regulations, legal doctrines, and court decisions. The analysis is conducted using the theory of legal consequences and the theory of legal liability. The results of the study indicate that a Deed of Statement of Decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders made on the basis of falsified meeting minutes remains valid as an authentic deed as long as it has not been annulled by a final and binding court decision. However, if it is proven to contain false information, the deed may be annulled and give rise to civil, criminal, administrative, and ethical liability for the notary. This study emphasizes the importance of the principle of prudence for notaries in examining meeting minutes and shareholder attendance lists in order to ensure legal certainty.

Paradoks Kebebasan Beragama di Indonesia: Antara Ketertiban Sosial dan Hukum Negara

2025-12-17T17:16:33+08:00

Restrictions on freedom of religion within Indonesia’s legal system continue to generate normative and practical debates, particularly due to regulatory practices that tend to be repressive and discriminatory toward certain religious groups. This situation reflects an ongoing tension between the protection of fundamental rights and the state’s interest in maintaining social order. This study aims to analyze freedom of religion in Indonesia from a utilitarian perspective, specifically through John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, and to propose a legal reformulation oriented toward justice and the promotion of the common good. The research employs a normative legal method using philosophical and conceptual approaches, drawing on statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and utilitarian legal philosophy. The findings indicate that current restrictions on religious freedom in Indonesia are inconsistent with utilitarian principles, as they often undermine the greatest happiness of those affected without clear evidence of actual harm to society at large. The proposed legal reform includes revising discriminatory regulations, simplifying the licensing procedures for houses of worship in a non-discriminatory manner, and accelerating the establishment of a National Regulatory Body as a mechanism for legal harmonization. The application of the harm principle in public policymaking has significant implications for strengthening the protection of religious freedom, balancing individual liberty with social order, and fostering a more just and welfare-oriented legal system.