Developments after the Establishment of the Unitary State

Undang-undang 1950 No. 7, L.N. 1950 No. 56, see R. Soepomo, Undang-undang Dasar Sementara Republik Indonesia. Google Scholar

Cf. Soepomo, op. cit. p. 189.Google Scholar

Mahkamah Agung Indonesia, December 22, 1953, Hukum 1954 No. 2–3 p. 65 ff.Google Scholar

According to Ko Tjay Sing, Kodifikasi dan Unifikasi Hukum Perdata dan Dagang, 1958, p. 17, the existence of two different codes binding for different areas is contrary to the purport of art. 102 of the Constitution, which had ordered a codification for the criminal law.Google Scholar

In a postscript in Hukum 1959 No. 5–6 p. 54.Google Scholar

Cf. J. E. Jonkers, Het Nederlandsch-Indische Strafstelsel, p. 15.Google Scholar

See Madjalah Hukum dan Masjarakat, 1959 Tah. IV No. 1 p. 46–47 and the continuation of ‘Aneka Warna Hukum Pidana Indonesia’.Google Scholar

See for instance, the Tjikini-case, Pos Indonesia, August 13, 1958 (art. 104 for an attempt made on the life of the President in Djakarta), and the case of Aminullah Lewa N, who was punished on base of art. 134 and 137 for having insulted the President in Makasar, Pos Indonesia, Sept. 17, 1958.Google Scholar

For example, the Jungschläger-case, see R. Soenario, Proses Jungschläger, 1956 p. 66 and p. 176, the Schmidt-case: Keng Po, October 15, 1956, Harian Rakjat and Pedoman, October 17, 1956 (data acquired from the Dept. of Political Science, Institute for Social Research of the Faculty of Law and Social Science, University of Indonesia, Djakarta). See for details, ‘Aneka Warna Hukum Pidana Indonesia’. See also the cases tried by the Military Tribunal of Semarang on April 14, 1954 (Hukum 1956 No. 1–2, p. 77 ff) and on October 27, 1954 (Hukum 1958, No. 3–4 p. 115 ff), both with a postscript of Oemar Seno Adji.Google Scholar

See the case of Sultan Hamid II, Hukum 1953 No. 2–3 p. 45 which was tried not in accordance with the theory of the Documentation Bureau for Overseas Law (see above, note 143), the case tried by the Supreme Court on December 22, 1953, Hukum 1954 No. 2–3 p. 65 ff, and the case of Djody Gondokusumo, Hukum 1956 No. 5–6 p. 45 ff. On the other hand, the Supreme Court considered the K.U.H.P. to be binding in Asahan, East Sumatra, because it investigated whether the defendant has insulted the President (art. 134 K.U.H.P.) or not, Hukum 1958 No. 5–6 p. 165 ff. This can only be correct if one sticks to the explicit stipulation of art. 2 of the Provisional Law Regulation 1947, but it is incorrect according to its system. It was not explained by the Supreme Court which interpretation was followed. ¹⁶⁹ E. Utrecht, Pengantar, p. 184 note 30, Hukum Pidana, p. 55. Cf. the author’s review article in Madjalah Hukum dan Masjarakat 1959 Tah. IV No. 1 p. 24–26.Google Scholar

J. D. van der Meulen, ‘Artikel 161 bis Wetboek van Strafrecht’, M.D.B. 1954 p. 96–97.Google Scholar

Undang-undang Darurat 1951 No. 16, L.N. 1951 No. 88, entered into force on September 17, 1951.Google Scholar

Cf. Lemaire, Het Wetboek van Strafrecht, p. 90–91.Google Scholar

Undang-undang 1951 No. 8, L.N. 1951 No. 44, in force as from July 13, 1951.Google Scholar

Undang-undang Darurat 1955 No. 8, L.N. 1955 No. 28, entered into force on June 2, 1955.Google Scholar

See the sentences of the Hooggerechtshof van Nederlandsch-Indië in the case of Spiritusfabriek Brantas, August 5, 1925, T. Vol. 127 p. 164 ff, and in the N.V. Hagemeyer-case, August 30, 1927, T. Vol. 127 p. 244 ff.Google Scholar

See for instance, art. 50 and 50a, S. 1886 No. 249 juncto S. 1931 No. 106, art. 84 and 86 S. 1898 No. 90 juncto S. 1931 No. 111, art. 30 and 31 S. 1898 No. 93 juncto S. 1931 No. 111, art. 28 S. 1931 No. 471.Google Scholar

Except art. 169 which presupposes that an association can commit crimes, cf. B. V. A. Röling, ‘De strafbaarheid van de Rechtspersoon’, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, Vol. LXVI 1957 p. 8 note 20.Google Scholar

See Raad van Justitie Batavia, December 30, 1939, confirmed by the Hooggerechtshof, May 21, 1940, T. Vol. 152 p. 677 ff, with an important postscript of W. F. G. van Hattum, p. 689 ff. It was about art. 3(3) Prijs-opdrijvingsordonnantie S. 1939 No. 259.Google Scholar

See art. 8 Crisisuitvoerordonnantie S. 1939 No. 659, art. 21 Deviezen Ordonnantie S. 1940 No. 205, art. 12 Ordonnantie Gecontroleerde Goederen S. 1948 No. 144, art. 17 Rijstordonnantie S. 1948 No. 253, art. 14 Prijsbeheersing-ordonnantie S. 1948 No. 2955.Google Scholar

Gf. Van Hattum, op. cit. p. 696 ff.Google Scholar

Undang-undang Darurat tentang penimbunan barang-barang, 1951 No. 17, L.N. 1951 No. 90, confirmed as Undang-undang by Undang-undang 1953 No. 1, L.N. 1953 No. 4.Google Scholar

E. Utrecht, ‘Beberapa Tjatatan tentang suatu Hukum Pidana jang lebih kolektif, Padjadjaran, 1958 Vol. I No. 1 p. 33, Hukum Pidana, p. 56 and p. 96.Google Scholar

This fact has been neglected by E. Bonn, ‘Enige beschouwingen over econo-mische delicten’, Ekonomi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 1954, Tah. 7 No. 10 p. 666, and by L. Th. Vervloet and Mohamad Jusuf, Pelanggaran Ekonomi di Indonesia, 1954.Google Scholar

See W. P. J. Pompe, De Persoon des Daders in het Strafrecht, 1928, recently in: ‘De Mens in het Strafrecht’, Rechtsgeleerd magazijn Themis 1957, p. 90–96.Google Scholar

See B. V. A. Röling, ‘De Mens in het Recht’, Scripta Academic a Groningana VI, 9de Interfacultaire Leergang 1954–1955, p. 61–63, ‘De strafbaarheid van de Rechtspersoon’. p. 3.Google Scholar

See G. Th. Kempe, ‘Criminologie in existentialistische doorlichting’, Tijd-schrift voor Strafrecht Vol. LXI 1952 p. 170, and Pompe, ‘De Misdadige Mens’ in the same journal, Vol. LXIII 1954 p. 153; see also his works mentioned in note 174.Google Scholar

Röling, ‘De Mens in het Recht’, p. 63–64, ‘De Strafbaarheid van de Rechtspersoon’, p. 4.Google Scholar

Röling, ‘L’orientation moderne des notions d’auteur de l’infraction et de participation à l’infraction’, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 27e année 1957, p. 119.Google Scholar

Röling, ‘De Strafbaarheid van de Rechtspersoon’, p. 30.Google Scholar

Undang-undang Darurat 1955 No. 7 tentang Pengusutan, Penuntutan dan Peradilan Tindak-pidana Ekonomi, L.N. 1955 No. 27, supplemented by Undang-undang Darurat 1958 No. 8, L.N. 1958 No. 156, in force as from January 1, 1959, and recently by Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-undang 1960 No. 1, entered into force on February 2, 1960 (Pos Indonesia, February 11, 1960).Google Scholar

T.L.N. No. 801 p. 10.Google Scholar

Undang-undang Darurat 1951 No. 1 tentang tindakan-tindakan sementara untuk menjelenggarakan kesatuan susunan, kekuasaan dan atjara Pengadilan-pengadilan Sipil, L.N. 1951 No. 9, binding as from January 14, 1951.Google Scholar

Cf. Malikul Adil, ‘Penghapusan peradilan asli, terutama mengenai Keresidenan Bangkahulu dan Palembang’, Hukum 1957 No. 3–4 p. 7, according to whom a change of Pengadilan does only mean a change in the law of procedure, while a change of Peradilan does also comprise a change in the substantive law, an opinion influenced by that of Carpentier Alting, see above note 89. According to the traditional opinion, the substitution of a court of the government for a self-governing court or an indigenous court in directly governed territory does also effect a change in the substantive law, if not otherwise stipulated. In other words, a change of Pengadilan does also mean a change of Peradilan. The terminology of art. 1(2) is in accordance with this traditional view : only the courts of the self-governing lands and the indigenous courts in directly governed territory must be abolished and replaced by the courts of the government, not the substantive law, see art. 5(3)b. On the other hand both the religious courts and the law to be applied by those religious courts are maintained, therefore: Peradilan Agama.Google Scholar

T.L.N. No. 81 p. 7–8.Google Scholar

Lemaire, Het Recht in Indonesië, p. 273.Google Scholar

Malikul Adil, op. cit. p. 8.Google Scholar

See B. ter Haar, De rechtspraak van de landraden naar ongeschreven recht, oration Batavia 1930, p. 6, Ter Haar, Beginselen en Stelsel, p. 237, Ter Haar, Hoebel and Schiller, op. cit. p. 230.Google Scholar

Lemaire, op. cit. p. 252.Google Scholar

Mahadi, Beberapa sendi hukum di Indonesia, Part I, 1954 p. 262, Landrechter Medan, June 9, 1947, T. 1947 p. 217 ff, cited by Schiller, op. cit. p. 428 note 94. Art 5(3)a of the Emergency Law has provided the legal basis for this substitution of the government courts for the self-governing courts.Google Scholar

According to Mahadi, op. cit. p. 264–265, criminal adat law was still effectual because it was applied by the government courts.Google Scholar

Dormeier, op. cit. p. 111.Google Scholar

Cf. Lemaire, op. cit. p. 271.Google Scholar

T.L.N. No. 81 p. 6. Lemaire, op. cit. p. 252 accepts Act No. 23 1947 to be valid for all recovered areas in Kalimantan, except West Kalimantan which, according to Lemaire, was recovered on April 18, 1950. The author has not been able to find any decree concerning the recovery of West Kalimantan, cf. Logemann, Staatsrecht, p. 41, Schiller, op. cit. p. 338 and p. 432 note 10, M.D.B. 1952, ‘Decentralisatie in Kalimantan’, p. 90 ff, Sastra-negara, op. cit. p. 9. The validity of Act No. 23 1947 in the recovered areas in Kalimantan is also accepted by Schiller, op. cit. p. 325.Google Scholar

Cf. Logemann, op. cit. p. 130, Böhtlingk, op. cit. p. 24.Google Scholar

See above note 140.Google Scholar

Cf. M.D.B. 1953, Territoriale verscheidenheid’, p. 28, Mahadi, op. cit. p. 260. See also Lemaire, op. cit. p. 271.Google Scholar

Cf. Logemann, op. cit. p. 131 note 2.Google Scholar

For Bali, Ministerial decree of March 19, 1952 No. JS. 4/8/16, T.L.N. No. 231, entered into force on March 26, 1952, Sulawesi, decree of August 21, 1952 No. JB. 4/3/17, T.L.N. No. 276, in force as from September 1, 1952, Sumbawa, Sumba, Timor and Flores, decree of May 19, 1954 No. JB. 4/2/20, T.L.N. No. 603, in force for Sumbawa on July 1, 1954, and for the other areas on September 1, 1954.Google Scholar

For Sulawesi, decree of August 21, 1952 see note 198, Lombok, decree of September 30, 1953 No. JB. 4/4/7, T.L.N. No. 462, in force on October 1, 1953, Kalimantan, see note 140.Google Scholar

Ministerial decree of December 10, 1956 No. JB. 4/3/20, entered into force on January 1, 1957, not published in T.L.N. but in Hukum 1957 No. 1–2 p. 154. In view of Malikul Adil’s article, mentioned in note 183 above, the Pengadilan Adat in Palembang has also been abolished. But according to a verbal information from Mr Maengkom of the Department of Justice, the decree for Bengkulen has been the last one issued on base of Emergency Law No. 1 1951.Google Scholar