ANDRI, SH, MH

06/08/2026

LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, CHAPTER XI CRIMINAL PROVISIONS, Article 123 :
Shall be punished with imprisonment of 5 (five) years and a fine of up Rp.500.000.000, 00 (five hundred million rupiah):

a. any person who intentionally provides false data or a letter or a forged or incorrect information with a view to obtaining visas or residence for himself or others;

b. every Foreigners who deliberately using Visa or residence referred to in letter a to enter and / or
located in the Territory of Indonesia.

04/08/2026

Every Foreigners who deliberatelymisuse Residence Permit Shall be punished with imprisonment of 5 (five)years.

LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, CHAPTER XI CRIMINAL PROVISIONS, UU Nomor 6 Tahun 2011, Article 122 ayat (1). every Foreigners who deliberately misuse or engaged in activities inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the residence provided to him; (2). every person who ordered or provide an opportunity for foreigners to abuse or engage in activities inconsistent with the intent or purpose of the residence provided to him.

03/08/2026

Membayar pekerja/buruh di bawah upah minimum, adalah termasuk tindak pidana kejahatan, sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 81 angka 66 Perppu Cipta Kerja yang mengubah Pasal 185 UU Ketenagakerjaan, yang berbunyi:

Barang siapa melanggar ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 42 ayat (2), Pasal 68, Pasal 69 ayat (2), Pasal 80, Pasal 82, Pasal 88A ayat (3), Pasal 88E ayat (2), Pasal 143, Pasal 156 ayat (1), atau Pasal 160 ayat (4) dikenai sanksi pidana penjara paling singkat 1 tahun dan paling lama 4 tahun dan/atau pidana denda paling sedikit Rp100 juta dan paling banyak Rp400 juta.

Tindak pidana sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) merupakan tindak pidana kejahatan.

03/08/2026

21/07/2026

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. - Plato

18/07/2026

PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI Nomor :59/PUU-XXI/2023, Tertanggal 21 Desember 2023.

Menyatakan ketentuan norma Pasal 8 angka 21 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2023 tentang Pengembangan dan Penguatan Sektor Keuangan (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2023 Nomor 4, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6845) sepanjang frasa “hanya dapat dilakukan oleh penyidik Otoritas Jasa Keuangan” dalam Pasal 49 ayat (5) Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2011 tentang Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2011 Nomor 111, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 5253), bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 dan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat secara bersyarat sepanjang tidak dimaknai, “dapat dilakukan oleh penyidik Otoritas Jasa Keuangan”. Sehingga norma Pasal 8 angka 21 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2023 tentang Pengembangan dan Penguatan Sektor Keuangan yang memuat perubahan dalam Pasal 49 ayat (5) Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2011 tentang Otoritas Jasa Keuangan selengkapnya berbunyi: “Penyidikan atas tindak pidana di sektor jasa keuangan dapat dilakukan oleh penyidik Otoritas Jasa Keuangan”.

18/07/2026

PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI Nomor :70/PUU-XVII/2019, Tertanggal 4 Mei 2021.

Menyatakan Pasal 1 angka 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2019 Nomor 197, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6409) yang semula berbunyi “Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang selanjutnya disebut Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi adalah lembaga negara dalam rumpun kekuasaan eksekutif yang melaksanakan tugas pencegahan dan pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi sesuai dengan Undang-Undang ini”,

bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat secara bersyarat sepanjang tidak dimaknai, “Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang selanjutnya disebut Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi adalah lembaga negara dalam rumpun kekuasaan eksekutif yang dalam melaksanakan tugas pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi bersifat independen dan bebas dari pengaruh kekuasaan manapun”.

Menyatakan frasa “tidak selesai dalam jangka waktu paling lama 2 (dua) tahun” dalam Pasal 40 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2019 Nomor 197, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6409) bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat sepanjang tidak dimaknai “tidak selesai dalam jangka waktu paling lama 2 (dua) tahun terhitung sejak diterbitkannya Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan (SPDP)”.

Sehingga, Pasal 40 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2019 Nomor 197, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6409) yang semula berbunyi “Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dapat menghentikan penyidikan dan penuntutan terhadap perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang penyidikan dan penuntutannya tidak selesai dalam jangka waktu paling lama 2 (dua) tahun”, menjadi selengkapnya berbunyi “Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dapat menghentikan penyidikan dan penuntutan terhadap perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang penyidikan dan penuntutannya tidak selesai dalam jangka waktu paling lama 2 (dua) tahun terhitung sejak diterbitkannya Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan (SPDP).”

&associates

17/07/2026

The “fruit of the poisonous tree” is a doctrine that is very similar to the exclusionary rule. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine evidence obtained from illegal arrest, search or seizure is not admissible in the court of law. Such evidence is excluded by the courts at the time of trial and the State is prevented from using the same as evidence. In this paper, I intend to trace the history of this exclusionary rule or the ‘fruits of the poisonous tree’ doctrine to understand and analyze the significance of this doctrine. I intend to do this by examining the various case-laws in this regard which help us in comprehending the judicial reasoning for the application or non-application of the rule. In my concluding note, I analyze the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule and the societal costs that are incurred in the application and non-application of this doctrine.
MEANING OF THE ‘FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE’
The fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor that was developed by the Courts of the United States of America. The meaning of this metaphor is that, evidence (fruit) is inadmissible if it has been obtained as a result of illegal search, arrest and coercive interrogation (i.e. the source of the evidence is poisonous). It is so because it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the part of Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It is in the light of this that we should examine the cases with respect to the fruit of the poison tree doctrine. The rule was first hinted in the case Boyd v. U.S.
The issue in this case was with respect to a provision in the statute which authorizes a court of the United States on motion of the government authority to require the defendant to produce in courts his invoice, private books or papers. The main question that the court had to consider was whether this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court in this case gave a broad interpretation of the term ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’. The court stated that “it is not only the braking of his doors or the rummaging of his drawers that constitute the offence, but it is invasion of his right of private security, personal liberty and private property. It is equivalent to the term ‘search and seizure’ given in the Fourth Amendment and hence is unconstitutional. The term ‘unreasonable searches and seizure’ should be liberally construed to give effect to the Fourth Amendment. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Only ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures are prohibited.

Thus we see that, in this case, the Court liberally construed the meaning of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ even mean the production of a party’s books or materials in court by compelling him as the statute provided. This case also interpreted giving due regard and emphasis to the rights of an individual. Let us now look at the subsequent cases which used this doctrine. The case which enumerated the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree was a 1914 case Weeks v. United States. In this case, the police officers had entered the defendant’s house in his absence without a search warrant and had seized some papers and documents which were later produced during trial. The court held that this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment which emphasized on the principle that ‘every man’s house is his castle’ and hence unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited. Justice Day further said that the Fourth Amendment intended to secure the citizen in person and property against lawful invasion of the sanctity of his home by officers of law. Hence, in holding them and using them for trial in the lower court was unconstitutional and hence a prejudicial error has occurred.