Kepastian Hukum Atas Tanah Dengan Surat SKGR Sebagai Jaminan Utang Pada Perbankan di Kota Pekanbaru

Tanah merupakan hal yang paling penting dalam kehidupan manusia, semakin banyak jumlah manusia, maka akan semakin berkurang lingkungan hidup bagi manusia dan juga mahluk hidup lainnya seperti tumbuh-tumbuhan dan hewan.  Apalagi tanah pada masa sekarang sudah mempunyai nilai ekonomis yang nilainya semakin tinggi.Keberadaan dan fungsi tanah berkurang, karena tanah diperjual belikan dan dijadikan sebagai jaminan dalam proses hutang piutang diperbankan. Tanah merupakan jaminan benda tidak bergerak yang diikat dengan mengunakan hak tanggungan. Jaminan yang ada diperbankan ada dua yaitu jaminan untuk benda bergerak berupa hak jaminan fidusia dan jaminan terhadap benda tetap berupa tanah dan rumah biasanya  dikiat dengan pemasangan hak tanggungan. Tanah di Indonesia diatur dalam UUPA No.5 Tahun 1960 tentang  Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria yang di dalamnya menyerap hukum adat, yaitu diakuinya hak ulayat sebagaimana yang tertuang dalam pasal 5 UUPA yang menyatakan “Hukum agraria yang berlaku atas bumi, air dan ruan gangkasa ialah hukum adat, sepanjang tidak bertentangan dengan kepentingan nasional dan Negara, yang berdasarkan atas persatuan bangsa,dengan sosialisme Indonesia serta dengan peraturan-peraturan yang tercantum dalam Undang-Undang ini dan dengan peraturan perundangan lainnya, segala sesuatu dengan mengindahkan unsur- unsure yang bersandar pada hukum agama”. Salah satu jaminan yang digunakan untuk hutang piutang diperbankan adalah tanah. Jaminan merupakan bagian dari perjanjian tambahan atau acesoir yang biasanya dibuat beserta dengan perjanjian kredit perbankan. Tanah digunakan sebagai jaminan apabila platform pinjaman bernilai lebih dari 50 juta, walaupun biasanya sudah ada jaminan berupa sk pekerjaan yang dijadikan jaminan

Analisis Terhadap Peranan Penegak Hukum Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana

Istilah sistem peradilan pidana menunjukkan mekanisme pencegahan kejahatan yang menggunakan pendekatan sistem yang  mendasar. Pendekatan sistem adalah pendekatan yang menggunakan semua elemen yang saling terkait sebagai satu kesatuan dan saling berhubungan serta saling mempengaruhi. Melalui pendekatan ini, polisi, kejaksaan, pengadilan dan penjara merupakan elemen penting dan saling berhubungan.  Pada dasarnya sistem peradilan pidana merupakan suatu proses penegakan hukum terhadap hukum pidana materil. Dalam penegakan hukum pidana materil dalam sistem peradilan pidana, hal ini harus dilakukan melalui peran penegak hukum. Penegakan hukum merupakan bagian penting. Karena tanpa penegakan hukum, maka hukum yang disepakati masyarakat tidak dapat ditegakkan. Bagian dari undang-undang yang dimaksud adalah KUHAP. Dalam perspektif sosiologi terdadapat beberapa faktor penegakan hukum, salah satunya adalah penegak hukum itu sendiri. Penegak hukum yang termasuk dalam KUHAP adalah polisi, pengacara, penuntut umum (jaksa), dan hakim. Kajian ini mengkaji peran penegakan hukum dalam acara pidana. Kajian ini terdiri dari polisi, pengacara, penuntut umum (jaksa), dan hakim. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan hukum normatif dengan memfokuskan pembahasan terhadap peran faktor penegak hukum dalam sistem peradilan pidana dikaitkan dengan sosiologi hukum. Hasil penelitian ini menggambarkan peran penegak hukum dalam KUHAP

Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorising and evaluating Non-adoption, Abandonment and challenges to Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) of health and care technologies

© 2017 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.Background: Many promising technological innovations in health and social care are characterized by nonadoption or abandonment by individuals or by failed attempts to scale up locally, spread distantly, or sustain the innovation long term at the organization or system level. Objective: Our objective was to produce an evidence-based, theory-informed, and pragmatic framework to help predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program. Methods: The study had 2 parallel components: (1) secondary research (hermeneutic systematic review) to identify key domains, and (2) empirical case studies of technology implementation to explore, test, and refine these domains. We studied 6 technology-supported programs—video outpatient consultations, global positioning system tracking for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organizing software, and integrated case management via data sharing—using longitudinal ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across more than 20 organizations. Data were collected at micro level (individual technology users), meso level (organizational processes and systems), and macro level (national policy and wider context). Analysis and synthesis was aided by sociotechnically informed theories of individual, organizational, and system change. The draft framework was shared with colleagues who were introducing or evaluating other technology-supported health or care programs and refined in response to feedback. Results: The literature review identified 28 previous technology implementation frameworks, of which 14 had taken a dynamic systems approach (including 2 integrative reviews of previous work). Our empirical dataset consisted of over 400 hours of ethnographic observation, 165 semistructured interviews, and 200 documents. The final nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework included questions in 7 domains: the condition or illness, the technology, the value proposition, the adopter system (comprising professional staff, patient, and lay caregivers), the organization(s), the wider (institutional and societal) context, and the interaction and mutual adaptation between all these domains over time. Our empirical case studies raised a variety of challenges across all 7 domains, each classified as simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). Programs characterized by complicatedness proved difficult but not impossible to implement. Those characterized by complexity in multiple NASSS domains rarely, if ever, became mainstreamed. The framework showed promise when applied (both prospectively and retrospectively) to other programs.Peer reviewe

The effectiveness of health appraisal processes currently in addressing health and wellbeing during spatial plan appraisal: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Spatial planning affects the built environment, which in turn has the potential to have a significant impact on health, for good or ill. One way of ensuring that spatial plans take due account of health is through the inclusion of health considerations in the statutory and non statutory appraisal processes linked to plan-making processes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review to identify evaluation studies of appraisals or assessments of plans where health issues were considered from 1987 to 2010.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 6161 citations were identified: 6069 from electronic databases, 57 fromwebsite searches, with a further 35 citations from grey literature, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. These 20 citations reported on a total of 135 different case studies: 11 UK HIA; 11 non UK high income countries HIA, 5 UK SEA or other integrated appraisal; 108 non UK high income SEA or other integrated appraisal. All studies were in English. No relevant studies were identified reporting on low or middle income countries.</p> <p>The studies were limited by potential bias (no independent evaluation, with those undertaking the appraisal also responsible for reporting outcomes), lack of detail and a lack of triangulation of results. Health impact assessments generally covered the four specified health domains (physical activity, mental health and wellbeing, environmental health issues such as pollution and noise, injury) more comprehensively than SEA or other integrated appraisals, although mental health and wellbeing was an underdeveloped area. There was no evidence available on the incorporation of health in Sustainability Appraisal, limited evidence that the recommendations from any type of appraisal were implemented, and almost no evidence that the recommendations had led to the anticipated outcomes or improvements in health postulated.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Research is needed to assess (i) the degree to which statutory plan appraisal processes (SA in the UK) incorporate health; (ii) whether recommendations arising from health appraisal translate into the development process and (iii) whether outcomes are as anticipated.</p

Process and impact evaluation of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Health Impact Assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>despite health impact assessment (HIA) being increasingly widely used internationally, fundamental questions about its impact on decision-making, implementation and practices remain. In 2005 a collaboration between public health and local government authorities performed an HIA on the Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Options paper in New Zealand. The findings of this were incorporated into the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy;</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>using multiple qualitative methodologies including key informant interviews, focus groups and questionnaires, this study performs process and impact evaluations of the Christchurch HIA including evaluation of costs and resource use;</p> <p>Results</p> <p>the evaluation found that the HIA had demonstrable direct impacts on planning and implementation of the final Urban Development Strategy as well as indirect impacts on understandings and ways of working within and between organisations. It also points out future directions and ways of working in this successful collaboration between public health and local government authorities. It summarises the modest resource use and discusses the important role HIA can play in urban planning with intersectoral collaboration and enhanced relationships as both catalysts and outcomes of the HIA process;</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>as one of the few evaluations of HIA that have been published to date, this paper makes a substantial contribution to the literature on the impact, utility and effectiveness of HIA.</p

DYNAMO-HIA–A Dynamic Modeling Tool for Generic Health Impact Assessments

Currently, no standard tool is publicly available that allows researchers or policy-makers to quantify the impact of policies using epidemiological evidence within the causal framework of Health Impact Assessment (HIA). A standard tool should comply with three technical criteria (real-life population, dynamic projection, explicit risk-factor states) and three usability criteria (modest data requirements, rich model output, generally accessible) to be useful in the applied setting of HIA. With DYNAMO-HIA (Dynamic Modeling for Health Impact Assessment), we introduce such a generic software tool specifically designed to facilitate quantification in the assessment of the health impacts of policies

What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand

Background: While many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas' conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains. Methods: We reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings. Results: We found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; 'right person right level'; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported. Conclusion: We have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about 'right' timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report