Rechtsidee
Vol 11 No 1 (2023): June
Business Law

Rethinking Unjust Enrichment: Advancing Distributive Justice in Indonesian Law
Memikirkan Kembali Unjust Enrichment: Memajukan Keadilan Distributif dalam Hukum Indonesia

View Article
  • Rian Ganggas Puspatara,
  • I Gede Agus Kurniawan*
Rian Ganggas Puspatara
Fakultas Hukum dan Ilmu Sosial Universitas Pendidikan Nasional, Denpasar, Indonesia
I Gede Agus Kurniawan
Fakultas Hukum dan Ilmu Sosial Universitas Pendidikan Nasional, Denpasar, Indonesia *
Bio

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v12i1.961


Picture in here are illustration from public domain image or provided by the author, as part of their works
Published June 28, 2023
Keywords
  • unjust enrichment,
  • progressive legal perspective,
  • distributive justice,
  • Indonesian civil law,
  • Pancasila values
How to Cite
Puspatara, R. G., & Kurniawan, I. G. A. (2023). Rethinking Unjust Enrichment: Advancing Distributive Justice in Indonesian Law. Rechtsidee, 11(1), 10.21070/jihr.v12i1.961. https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v12i1.961

Copyright (c) 2023 Rian Ganggas Puspatara, I Gede Agus Kurniawan (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the development of the unjust enrichment doctrine in Indonesia from a progressive legal perspective. Employing normative legal research with conceptual, comparative, and legislative approaches, the study confirms that the philosophical orientation of the unjust enrichment doctrine in Indonesian civil law is expected to optimize the idea of distributive justice, which is relevant in civil practice. The actualization of the unjust enrichment doctrine in a progressive legal perspective can be achieved through philosophical, theoretical, and practical approaches. By exploring the principles of proportionality and Pancasila values as Indonesia's legal ideals, integrating the development of unjust enrichment doctrine within the theoretical framework of tortious acts, and promoting the active and creative utilization of Article 1359 of the Indonesian Civil Code, this study offers insights for judges and legal practitioners in their pursuit of justice in civil cases based on unjust enrichment claims.
Highlights:

  • Philosophical orientation: Emphasizes distributive justice and embraces Pancasila values as Indonesia's legal ideals.
  • Theoretical development: Integrates unjust enrichment doctrine within the framework of tortious acts.
  • Practical approach: Encourages active and creative utilization of Article 1359 of the Indonesian Civil Code by judges and legal practitioners.

Keywords: unjust enrichment, progressive legal perspective, distributive justice, Indonesian civil law, Pancasila values

 

View Article

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. A. Puneri, “Comparison Of The Law Of Contract Between Islamic Law And Indonesian Law,” J. Law Leg. Reform, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 65–82, 2021.
  2. J. Halberda, “The principle of good faith and fair dealingin English contract law,” Pravovedenie, vol. 64, no. 3, p. 313, 2020.
  3. F. Kurniawan, X. Nugraha, G. A. Putra, V. Taniady, and B. Jansen, “The Principle of Balance Formulation as the Basis for Cancellation of Agreement in Indonesia,” Lex Sci. Law Rev., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 121–156, 2022, doi: 10.15294/lesrev.v6i1.55468.
  4. T. Tarmizi, “The Principle of Consensualism and Freedom of Contract as a Reflection of Morality and Legal Certainty of Contract Laws in Indonesia,” Webology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 336–347, 2020, doi: 10.14704/WEB/V17I2/WEB17036.
  5. N. A. Sinaga, “Perspektif Force Majeure Dan Rebus Sic Stantibus Dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia,” J. Ilm. Huk. Dirgant., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2020, doi: 10.35968/jh.v11i1.648.
  6. Z. Liao, “The validity of exemption clauses in contract law: Cases, rules, legislation intervention and implications,” SISU Law Rev., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 2, 2021.
  7. P. N. H. Simanjuntak, Hukum Perdata Indonesia, 3rd ed. Jakarta: Kencana, 2017.
  8. L. Nadriana, “Law Harmonization on Heir Responsibility of Personal Guarantor in Bankrupt Company,” J. Din. Huk., vol. 18, no. 1, p. 12, 2018, doi: 10.20884/1.jdh.2018.18.1.1469.
  9. R. M. Hazmi, A. S. Jahar, and N. Adhha, “Construction of Justice, Certainty, and Legal Use in the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 46 P/HUM/2018.,” J. Cita Huk., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 159–178, 2021, doi: 10.15408/jch.v9i1.11583.
  10. J. L. Fabra-Zamora, “Legal Positivism as a Theory of Law’s Existence,” Isonomía - Rev. teoría y Filos. del derecho, vol. 1, no. 55, pp. 193–211, 2021, doi: 10.5347/isonomia.v0i55.487.
  11. M. Hario Mahar, “Fenomena Dalam Kekosongan Hukum,” RechtsVinding Online, p. 2, 2018.
  12. D. S. Almeling, W. Bratic, M. Cooper, A. Cox, and P. Anthony, “Disputed Issues in Awarding Unjust Enrichment Damages in Trade Secret Cases,” Sedona Conf. J., vol. 19, no. 2, 2018.
  13. R. A. Faizal Kurniawan, Peter Mahmud Marzuki, Erni Agustin, “Unsur Kerugian Dalam Unjustified Enrichment Untuk Mewujudkan Keadilan Korektif (Corrective Justice),” Yuridika, vol. 33, no. 1, p. 19, 2018.
  14. J. F. G. Gunawan Widjaja, Mika Anabelle, Christina Herawati G, Grace Riana, “Unjust Enrichment,” Cross-border, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 259, 2018.
  15. A. E. Endang Suprapti, “Itikad Baik Dalam Perjanjian Suatu Perspektif Hukum Dan Keadilan,” SALAMJurnal Sos. dan Budaya Syar-i, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 151, 2021.
  16. Peter Mahmud Marzuki, Penelitian Hukum, 13th ed. Jakarta: Kencana, 2017.
  17. J. W. Stempel, “Legal Ethics and Law Reform Advocacy,” St. Mary’s J. Leg. Malpract. Ethics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 244–289, 2020.
  18. L. Susanti, “The Comparison Between Recognition to Choice of Law in International Contracts by Courts and Arbitration in Indonesia,” Kertha Patrika, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 170–188, 2019.
  19. D. P. Dicky Eko Prasetio, Fradhana Putra Disantara, Nadia Husna Azzahra, “The Legal Pluralism Strategy of Sendi Traditional Court in the Era of Modernization Law,” Rechtsidee, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 4, 2021.
  20. Peter De Cruz, Comparative Law in a Changing World. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.
  21. Z. Aidi, “Implementasi E-Court Dalam Mewujudkan Penyelesaian Perkara Perdata Yang Efektif Dan Efisien,” Masal. Huk., vol. 49, no. 1, p. 80, 2020, doi: 10.14710/mmh.49.1.2020.80-89.
  22. P. A. Indra A Sutalaksana, An An Chandrawulan, “The Implementation of Unjust Enrichment in Investment Arbitration : Case Study Churchill Mining Plc V . the Government of the Republic of,” South East Asia J. Contemp. Business, Econ. Law, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 102–107, 2019.
  23. M. M. Vivian, “Law, justice and Reza Banakar’s legal sociology,” Onati Socio-Legal Ser., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2021, doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1169.
  24. R. Christiawan, “The Use of Receivables as Collateral in Business Practices in Indonesia,” Yuridika, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 427, 2021, doi: 10.20473/ydk.v36i2.25372.
  25. S. W. Kit Barker, Penelope Bristow, “Unjust Enrichment In Australia,” Lloyd’s Marit. Commer. Law Q., vol. 289, no. 1, p. 2, 2021.
  26. Kit Barker, “Unjust Enrichment In Australia: What Is(N’t) It? Implications For Legal Reasoning And Practice,” Melb. Univ. Law Rev., vol. 43, no. 3, p. 908, 2020.
  27. S. D. Elise Bant, Kit Barker, Research Handbook on Unjust Enrichment and Restitution. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2020.
  28. Abdullah, “Juridical Study of Corruption Crime in Indonesia: A Comparative Study,” Int. J. Law, Environ. Nat. Resour., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 47, 2022.
  29. R. A. R. Noratikah Muhammad Azman Ng, Zainal Amin Ayub, “The Legal Aspect Of Illicit Enrichment In Malaysia: Is It A Crime To Be Rich?,” UUM J. Leg. Stud., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 268, 2022.
  30. R. Hidayat, “Mendorong Percepatan Pembahasan RUU Hukum Perdata Internasional.” www.hukumonline.com, p. 1, 2022.
  31. S. B. Lionel D. Smith, Paul-André Crépeau, “Unjust Enrichment : Principle or Cause of Action ?” McGill University, p. 4, 2021.
  32. L. Smith, “Unjust Enrichment,” McGill Law J. —, vol. 66, no. 1, p. 165, 2020.
  33. Yosepin, “Doktrin unjust enrichment dalam putusan-putusan pengadilan.” Universitas Indonesia, Depok, p. 24, 2018.
  34. D. A. Salsabila, “Perlunya Doktrin Unjustified Enrichment Dalam Perjanjian Sewa Menyewa Rumah (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia No. 1443 K/PDT/2011).” Universitas Indonesia, Depok, p. 43, 2020.
  35. S. Hedley, “Justice and discretion in the law of unjust enrichment,” Common Law World Rev., vol. 48, no. 3, p. 97, 2019.
  36. A. A. Richard J. Long, “The Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment.” Long International, Inc., p. 3, 2023.
  37. M. Ampovska, “Differing unjust enrichment and damages in theory and practice under macedonian law,” Balk. Soc. Sci. Rev., vol. 16, pp. 157–173, 2020, doi: 10.46763/BSSR2016157A.
  38. A. F. S. W. Wahono, “Perbandingan Doktrin Unjust Enrichment Sebagai Dasar Restitusi Menurut Hukum Indonesia dan Hukum Jerman.” Universitas Indonesia, Depok, p. 43, 2020.
  39. D.H.M. Meuwissen, Meuwissen tentang pengembanan hukum, ilmu hukum, teori hukum, dan filsafat hukum. Bandung: Refika Aditama, 2008.
  40. S. Shidarta, “Bernard Arief Sidharta: Dari Pengembanan Hukum Teoretis ke Pembentukan Ilmu Hukum Nasional Indonesia,” Undang J. Huk., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 441–476, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.22437/ujh.3.2.441-476.
  41. N. Qamar, “Theory Position in the Structure of Legal Science,” SIGn J. Huk., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 52–64, 2021, doi: 10.37276/sjh.v3i1.126.
  42. A. Z. Fanani, “Hermeneutika Hukum Sebagai Metode Penemuan Hukum: Telaah Filsafat Hukum.” http://pa-bengkulukota.go.id, p. 3, 2021.
  43. KBBI, “Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia Online.” KBBI, 2022.
  44. Dicky Eko Prasetio Adam Ilyas Felix Ferdin Bakker, “Membangun Moralitas dan Hukum Sebagai Integrative Mechanism di Masyarakat Dalam Perspektif Hukum Progresif,” Mimb. Keadilan, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 128–138, 2021.
  45. J. Oyuntungalag, “Trust Law Concept Challenging Civil Law System : Mongolian Example,” Beijing Law Rev., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1051–1082, 2022, doi: 10.4236/blr.2022.134066.
  46. M. Sahputra, “Restorative justice sebagai Wujud Hukum Progresif dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia.,” Transform. Adm., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 90, 2022.
  47. H. W. Tang, “The Role of the Law of Unjust Enrichment in Singapore,” Chinese J. Comp. Law, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 13, 2021.
  48. A. Botterell, “Private law, public right, and the law of unjust enrichment,” Int. J. Leg. Polit. Thought, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 540, 2021.
  49. Suteki, “Hukum Progresif: Hukum Berdimensi Transendental dalam Konteks Keindonesiaan.” publikasiilmiah.ums.ac.id, pp. 3–5, 2018.
  50. S. Stoljar, Unjust Enrichment and Unjust Sacrifice. London: Routledge, 2017.
  51. F. S. Raden Roro, A. Y. Hernoko, and G. Anand, “the Characteristics of Proportionality Principle in Islamic Crowdfunding in Indonesia,” J. Huk. Pembang., vol. 49, no. 2, p. 455, 2019, doi: 10.21143/jhp.vol49.no2.2013.
  52. A. Y. Hernoko, Hukum Perjanjian: Asas Proporsionalitas dalam Kontrak Komersial, 4th ed. Jakarta: Kencana, 2014.
  53. D. Rahardjo, “Ekonomi Pancasila Dalam Tinjauan Filsafat Ilmu.” ekonomikerakyatan.ugm.ac.id, Yogyakarta, 2021.
  54. S. Mertokusumo, Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2001.