STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law Entrance Exam Set

The scenario describes a situation where a local government in East Java, Indonesia, is considering enacting a regional regulation (Perda) to manage waste disposal. The core legal issue revolves around the principle of subsidiarity and the division of powers between the central government and regional governments in Indonesia, particularly concerning environmental management. Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the right to a healthy environment. Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management (UU PPLH) outlines the responsibilities of both central and regional governments in environmental management. Specifically, it mandates that regional governments are responsible for implementing environmental protection and management within their respective jurisdictions, including waste management, as long as it does not conflict with national laws and standards. The proposed Perda aims to establish a comprehensive waste management system, including collection, processing, and disposal, and to impose sanctions for non-compliance. This aligns with the mandate given to regional governments to manage local affairs, including environmental issues, as long as they operate within the framework of national legislation. The principle of subsidiarity, which is implicitly recognized in Indonesia’s decentralized governance structure, allows regional governments to handle matters that can be best managed at the local level. Therefore, the regional government has the legal authority to enact such a Perda, provided it adheres to the principles of national environmental law and does not create a regulatory vacuum or conflict with higher-level legislation. The key is that the Perda must complement, not contradict, national environmental policies and standards. The STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law, with its focus on Indonesian law and governance, would emphasize the importance of understanding these constitutional and legislative frameworks for regional autonomy and environmental responsibility.

The scenario presented involves a dispute over land ownership where the initial transaction was documented via a private deed, but no subsequent registration with the relevant land office occurred. The core legal issue revolves around the enforceability of this unregistered private deed against a third party who later acquires the land through a registered official title. In Indonesian land law, particularly concerning the principles of publicity and the protection of bona fide purchasers, registration plays a crucial role in establishing legal certainty and priority of rights. Article 19 of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles (UUPA) and subsequent implementing regulations emphasize that land rights are legally binding and enforceable against third parties only after they are registered. While a private deed may establish a contractual relationship between the original parties, its lack of registration renders it ineffective against subsequent bona fide purchasers who have properly registered their rights. This is because the land registry serves as a public record, and a purchaser who relies on this record in good faith is generally protected. Therefore, the unregistered private deed, despite its initial validity between the signatories, cannot supersede the rights of the subsequent purchaser who has completed the registration process. The principle of “publicity” through registration ensures that potential buyers can ascertain the legal status of a property. Without registration, the private deed remains a personal agreement, not a public declaration of ownership that binds the wider community or subsequent purchasers acting in good faith. This aligns with the foundational principles of land law that prioritize legal certainty and the protection of legitimate transactions documented through official channels.

The scenario presented involves a dispute over land ownership in a village, a common issue in Indonesian customary law and civil law contexts, which are foundational to legal studies at STIH Sunan Giri Malang. The core of the dispute lies in the conflicting claims of inheritance versus a sale agreement. Under Indonesian Civil Law (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata – KUH Perdata), particularly concerning property rights and contracts, the validity of a sale agreement hinges on several factors, including the capacity of the parties, the object of the sale, and the lawful cause of the agreement. Article 1320 KUH Perdata outlines the essential conditions for the validity of a contract: agreement of those who bind themselves, their capacity to contract, a certain object, and a lawful cause. In this case, the inheritance claim is based on customary law and familial ties, while the sale agreement is a formal legal transaction. The critical legal principle here is the hierarchy and interplay between customary law and national civil law. While customary law (hukum adat) plays a significant role in Indonesian society and can influence property rights, formal legal transactions like land sales are primarily governed by national civil law. The existence of a valid, registered land title (Sertifikat Hak Milik) is paramount in proving ownership under national law. The question asks which legal principle would be most crucial for the court to consider when adjudicating the dispute. The inheritance claim, while culturally significant, must be reconciled with the formal legal framework of property transfer. If the sale agreement was conducted according to the legal requirements for land transactions, including proper registration and documentation, it would generally take precedence over an unformalized inheritance claim, especially if the seller had the legal capacity to sell. The principle of *pacta sunt servanda* (agreements must be kept) is also relevant, emphasizing the binding nature of valid contracts. However, the most direct and fundamental principle for determining ownership in a dispute involving a sale versus inheritance, especially when formal titles are involved, is the legal validity and enforceability of the sale agreement itself, as established by civil law. This includes ensuring the seller had the legal right to sell and that the transaction met all statutory requirements for property transfer. Therefore, the principle that a legally executed sale agreement, meeting all civil code requirements, supersedes claims not formally recognized or transferred through the same legal channels is the most critical consideration.

The core principle at play here is the distinction between substantive law and procedural law, a fundamental concept in legal studies, particularly relevant for aspiring legal professionals at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. Substantive law defines rights and obligations, outlining what constitutes a crime or a civil wrong, and what remedies are available. Procedural law, on the other hand, governs the process by which substantive law is enforced. It dictates how cases are initiated, conducted, and decided in courts. Consider the scenario: a dispute arises over a property boundary. The right to own and possess property is a substantive legal right. The legal framework that dictates how a lawsuit to resolve this boundary dispute is filed, how evidence is presented, the rules of discovery, and the conduct of the trial are all aspects of procedural law. Without procedural law, substantive rights would be unenforceable. The question tests the ability to differentiate between these two branches of law and understand their interrelationship in the practical application of justice. The ability to correctly identify which aspect of the legal system is being described is crucial for understanding legal reasoning and the structure of legal practice, which are key focuses within the curriculum at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. This understanding underpins the study of various legal disciplines, from criminal law to civil litigation, ensuring students grasp how legal principles are translated into actionable legal processes.

The scenario presented involves a legal dispute concerning the interpretation of a contractual clause regarding force majeure. The core issue is whether the unforeseen surge in raw material costs, directly attributable to a global supply chain disruption, constitutes an event that would reasonably excuse performance under the contract’s force majeure provision. To determine this, one must analyze the specific wording of the clause and the established legal principles governing its application. A force majeure clause typically enumerates specific events (e.g., natural disasters, war, government actions) that can excuse performance. However, it often includes a general catch-all phrase like “or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the party.” The critical question is whether the economic hardship caused by the supply chain issue, while external and unforeseen, fits within the spirit and intent of the clause as understood in contract law. Legal precedent often requires that such events be not only unforeseeable but also unavoidable and that the party seeking to invoke the clause has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate its impact. In this case, the increased cost, while significant, might be viewed as an economic risk inherent in international trade rather than an event that fundamentally prevents performance, especially if alternative sourcing or price adjustments were feasible, albeit at a higher cost. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the clause, focusing on whether the event truly rendered performance impossible or commercially impracticable in a way contemplated by the parties, would likely lead to the conclusion that the economic hardship alone, without a complete cessation of supply or a prohibition on trade, does not automatically trigger the force majeure clause. The university’s emphasis on rigorous legal analysis and understanding of contractual principles means that candidates must demonstrate an ability to dissect such clauses and apply relevant legal doctrines.

The scenario describes a situation where a local community in Malang, represented by its customary council, seeks to establish a cooperative legal framework for managing ancestral land resources. This endeavor directly engages with the principles of customary law and its interaction with national statutory law, a core area of study at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The question probes the candidate’s understanding of how to legally formalize such a community-driven initiative. The most appropriate legal mechanism for this purpose, given the context of resource management and community self-governance, is the establishment of a legal entity that can hold rights and responsibilities. Among the options, a “Badan Hukum Adat” (Customary Legal Entity) is the most fitting, as it specifically recognizes and empowers indigenous or traditional community structures within the Indonesian legal system, allowing them to manage their collective assets and affairs according to their customs, while also being recognized by the state. This aligns with the broader Indonesian legal philosophy of acknowledging diverse legal orders. Other options, while potentially related to organizational structures, do not specifically address the unique legal status and recognition required for a customary council managing ancestral lands. A “Perjanjian Kerjasama” (Cooperation Agreement) might be a component but not the overarching legal framework. A “Yayasan” (Foundation) is typically for non-profit activities and may not fully capture the self-governance aspect of ancestral land management. A “Koperasi” (Cooperative) focuses on economic activities and might not encompass the broader legal and cultural rights associated with ancestral land. Therefore, the establishment of a Badan Hukum Adat is the most direct and legally sound approach for the customary council of Malang to achieve its objective.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation, particularly as applied in the Indonesian legal context, which is the focus of STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario involves a dispute over land ownership where a new regulation seemingly contradicts an older one. The core issue is how a legal professional would approach resolving this conflict. The correct approach involves recognizing the hierarchy of legal norms and the principles of statutory interpretation. In Indonesian law, as in many civil law systems, there’s a clear hierarchy: the Constitution (UUD 1945) is supreme, followed by laws (Undang-Undang), government regulations (Peraturan Pemerintah), presidential decrees (Keputusan Presiden), and regional regulations. When a new regulation (Peraturan Menteri) appears to conflict with an older law (Undang-Undang), the principle of *lex posterior derogat legi priori* (a later law repeals an earlier one) is often considered, but this is subordinate to the hierarchy of norms. A higher norm always prevails over a lower norm, regardless of the date. Therefore, if the new Peraturan Menteri conflicts with the Undang-Undang, and the Undang-Undang is of a higher legal standing, the Peraturan Menteri would be invalid or at least inapplicable to the extent of the conflict. The process of resolving such a conflict would involve identifying the specific provisions in both the Undang-Undang and the Peraturan Menteri, determining their respective legal standing, and applying the principle that a higher legal norm supersedes a lower one. This often leads to judicial review or administrative action to clarify or nullify the conflicting lower norm. The legal professional would need to analyze the intent of the legislator, the purpose of both enactments, and the broader legal framework to argue for the supremacy of the higher norm. This analytical process is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring legal certainty, core tenets emphasized at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation, particularly as applied in the Indonesian legal context, which is the focus of STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario presents a conflict between a general statutory provision and a specific ministerial regulation. The core legal principle at play is the hierarchy of norms and the rule of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* (specific law repeals general law). In Indonesian law, as in many civil law systems, a ministerial regulation, while subordinate to a law passed by the legislature, often provides specific implementation details or exceptions to broader legislative mandates. When a specific regulation directly addresses a subject matter covered by a general law, and there is a potential conflict or nuance, the specific regulation is typically applied to govern that particular situation. This ensures that the practical application of the law is tailored to the specific circumstances it aims to regulate, without necessarily invalidating the general law. The correct answer reflects the application of this principle, recognizing that the ministerial regulation, by its specific nature, takes precedence in its defined scope over the more general statutory provision. The other options represent misinterpretations of legal hierarchy, the principle of statutory interpretation, or the role of administrative regulations. For instance, applying the general law without considering the specific regulation would ignore the principle of *lex specialis*. Assuming the ministerial regulation is automatically invalid due to being subordinate to a law overlooks the fact that regulations are designed to implement and specify laws, and can contain specific provisions that govern particular aspects. Claiming the conflict requires a constitutional court review is premature, as such disputes are typically resolved through established legal interpretation methods before escalating to constitutional review.

The question probes the understanding of the principle of *pacta sunt servanda* in international law, specifically its application in the context of treaty obligations and the potential for unilateral withdrawal. The scenario presents a hypothetical nation, “Aethelgard,” seeking to abrogate a long-standing environmental protection treaty with “Borealia” due to perceived economic hardship and a shift in national priorities. The core legal principle at play is that treaties, once validly concluded, are binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith. This is enshrined in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which states: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” This principle, *pacta sunt servanda*, is the bedrock of treaty law. Aethelgard’s justification for withdrawal, based on economic hardship and changing national interests, does not automatically constitute a valid ground for termination or withdrawal under international law, as codified in the VCLT. Article 60 (Material Breach) and Article 61 (Supervening Impossibility of Performance) are specific grounds, but economic hardship alone or a mere change in national policy typically does not meet the high threshold for these exceptions. Article 62 (Fundamental Change of Circumstances – *rebus sic stantibus*) is a narrowly construed exception, requiring that the change be fundamental, unforeseen, and that the original obligations were an essential basis of consent. Simply experiencing economic difficulties or a shift in priorities usually falls short of this stringent test. Therefore, Aethelgard’s unilateral declaration of withdrawal, without a recognized legal basis under the treaty itself or customary international law as reflected in the VCLT, would be considered a breach of its treaty obligations. Borealia would have grounds to object and potentially seek remedies for the breach. The most accurate legal characterization of Aethelgard’s action, in the absence of a treaty-specific withdrawal clause or a universally accepted ground for termination, is a violation of the fundamental principle of *pacta sunt servanda*.

The question probes the understanding of the principle of *lex posterior derogat priori* (a later law repeals an earlier one) within the Indonesian legal framework, specifically as it relates to potential conflicts between national legislation and regional regulations. The scenario involves a new national law on environmental protection enacted after a regional regulation in East Java concerning waste management. The core issue is how the principle of *lex posterior* applies when the national law introduces stricter standards that might conflict with or supersede provisions in the existing regional regulation. The calculation here is conceptual, not numerical. We are evaluating the precedence of laws based on their enactment date. 1. Identify the two legal instruments: National Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management, and the East Java Provincial Regulation No. 5 of 2015 concerning Integrated Waste Management. 2. Determine the enactment dates: Law No. 32 of 2009 (enacted in 2009) and Provincial Regulation No. 5 of 2015 (enacted in 2015). 3. Apply the principle of *lex posterior derogat priori*: The later law (Provincial Regulation No. 5 of 2015) generally repeals or modifies earlier laws (Law No. 32 of 2009) if they cover the same subject matter and are in conflict. 4. However, the question specifies that the national law (Law No. 32 of 2009) introduced *stricter* environmental protection standards. This introduces a nuance. While the *date* suggests the regional regulation might supersede, the *content* and the hierarchy of laws in Indonesia are crucial. National laws, especially those concerning fundamental rights and national standards, often set a minimum benchmark. Regional regulations must be consistent with national laws and cannot derogate from them. Therefore, if the national law sets a higher standard, a regional regulation cannot set a lower one. The principle of *lex posterior* is subordinate to the principle of hierarchy of laws. 5. In this specific context, the national law’s stricter standards would prevail in areas where they are more stringent, even if enacted earlier. The regional regulation, being later, would govern aspects not covered by the national law or aspects where it aligns with or enhances the national law’s provisions, but it cannot weaken the national law’s stricter environmental standards. The most accurate interpretation is that the national law’s stricter provisions on environmental protection would continue to apply, and the regional regulation would be interpreted in a way that upholds these stricter standards, potentially by filling gaps or providing more specific implementation mechanisms that are consistent with the national law’s intent. The principle of *lex posterior* is not absolute and is subject to the hierarchy of norms. Therefore, the national law’s stricter environmental standards would remain binding.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principle of *stare decisis* and its application within a common law system, which is foundational to legal education at institutions like STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. *Stare decisis*, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” mandates that courts follow the precedents set by previous decisions when ruling on similar cases. This promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness in the legal system. When a higher court’s ruling is made, it establishes a binding precedent for all lower courts within its jurisdiction. Therefore, a trial court judge in Malang, when faced with a case involving contractual interpretation identical in its core legal issues to a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Indonesia, is legally obligated to apply the principles articulated in that Supreme Court ruling. Failure to do so would constitute a departure from established legal doctrine and could lead to the reversal of their judgment on appeal. The other options are incorrect because while persuasive authority from other jurisdictions or scholarly writings can influence judicial reasoning, they are not binding in the same way as a higher court’s precedent. Furthermore, a judge’s personal interpretation, while important for applying the law, cannot override established precedent.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation, particularly as they apply to the development of jurisprudence within a civil law system, which is characteristic of legal education in Indonesia and at institutions like STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario presents a conflict between a general legislative provision and a more specific administrative regulation. The core of the legal challenge lies in determining which legal norm should prevail. In civil law traditions, the hierarchy of norms is crucial. General legal principles and statutes typically hold a higher position than administrative regulations, which are derived from and must conform to the parent statute. Therefore, when a specific administrative regulation appears to contradict or unduly restrict the scope of a general law, the principle of *lex superior derogat legi inferiori* (the higher law repeals the lower law) is invoked. The administrative regulation, being subordinate, cannot override the legislative intent expressed in the statute. The correct approach involves analyzing the legislative intent behind the statute and assessing whether the administrative regulation exceeds its delegated authority or misinterprets the statutory mandate. The principle of proportionality and the prohibition against exceeding delegated powers are also relevant considerations. The administrative regulation’s attempt to impose a stricter, more burdensome requirement not explicitly found in the statute, and which effectively narrows the statute’s application, would likely be deemed invalid or ultra vires. Thus, the statute’s broader application, as intended by the legislature, would be upheld.

The scenario describes a situation where a local customary law, specifically regarding land inheritance practices in a village near Malang, is being challenged. The core issue is the potential conflict between this customary law and national statutory law, particularly concerning property rights and equality before the law. When evaluating such a conflict, legal scholars and practitioners at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law would consider several principles. The principle of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* (special law repeals general law) might seem applicable, suggesting the customary law, as a specific local rule, could supersede a general national law. However, this principle is not absolute and is often subordinate to constitutional principles. The Indonesian Constitution (UUD 1945) guarantees fundamental rights, including equality before the law and the protection of property. Furthermore, the principle of legal certainty and the hierarchy of laws are crucial. National laws, especially those derived from the Constitution, generally hold a higher position than local customs unless those customs have been explicitly recognized and integrated into the national legal framework in a way that respects constitutional mandates. In this case, if the customary law leads to discriminatory practices or infringes upon constitutionally guaranteed rights, it would likely be deemed invalid or at least subject to interpretation that aligns with constitutional supremacy. The concept of *rechtsvinding* (legal discovery) would be employed to reconcile these potentially conflicting norms, seeking an interpretation that upholds both the spirit of local traditions and the fundamental principles of the national legal order. The most appropriate approach for a law college like STIH Sunan Giri Malang, which values both legal scholarship and societal relevance, is to prioritize constitutional principles and national legal supremacy when customary law potentially clashes with fundamental rights. Therefore, the customary law would be considered subordinate if it contravenes constitutional guarantees of equality and property rights.

The core principle at play here is the doctrine of *stare decisis*, which mandates that courts adhere to precedents set by higher courts within their jurisdiction. When a lower court, such as a district court, encounters a case with facts and legal issues similar to those previously decided by a higher court, like a state supreme court or a federal appellate court, it is bound to follow the legal reasoning and rulings established in that prior decision. This ensures consistency, predictability, and fairness in the application of law. In the scenario presented, the district court judge is faced with a novel constitutional challenge to a local ordinance. While no prior ruling directly addresses this specific ordinance, the judge recalls a landmark decision from the State Supreme Court that established a broad interpretive framework for evaluating the constitutionality of similar local regulations under the state’s Bill of Rights. This framework, though not identical in its factual application, provides the governing legal principles and analytical methodology. Therefore, the judge’s obligation is to apply that established precedent to the current case, even if the specific ordinance differs, because the underlying legal questions and constitutional standards are the same. This adherence to precedent is fundamental to the hierarchical structure of the judiciary and the rule of law, fostering legal stability and public confidence in the judicial system. The judge’s duty is not to create new law in this instance but to interpret and apply existing law as articulated by a superior tribunal.

The scenario presented involves a dispute over land ownership in Indonesia, specifically concerning the validity of a customary land title versus a registered land title issued by the National Land Agency (BPN). In Indonesian land law, the principle of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* (a special law repeals a general law) is often applied. Customary land rights, governed by customary law (*hukum adat*), are considered special rights that existed prior to the enactment of general land laws. The Agrarian Law of 1960 (Undang-Undang Pokok Agraria No. 5 Tahun 1960) recognizes and protects customary land rights, provided they are still in existence and in accordance with national development. However, the law also mandates that all land rights must be registered. When a conflict arises between a customary right and a registered right, the legal framework prioritizes the registered right if it was obtained in good faith and without defects in the process, especially if it has been publicly recognized and utilized. However, the question implies that the customary title predates the registered title and that the registered title was obtained through potentially questionable means, specifically by circumventing the established customary procedures. The core of the legal issue lies in the principle of *prior tempore potior iure* (earlier in time, stronger in right) as applied to land rights, balanced against the legal certainty provided by registration. Given that the customary right is ancient and the registered title was obtained by bypassing the customary council and potentially misrepresenting facts to the BPN, the customary right, despite not being registered, holds significant weight. The legal principle of *pembuktian terbalik* (reversed burden of proof) might be invoked if fraud is alleged. However, without explicit proof of fraud in the registration process, the registered title generally carries legal presumption of validity. Yet, the question emphasizes the customary council’s role and the circumvention of their authority, which points to a procedural defect in the acquisition of the registered title from the perspective of customary law and potentially national law that recognizes customary rights. The STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law, with its focus on Indonesian legal systems, would emphasize the interplay between national and customary law. The most defensible legal position, considering the emphasis on the customary council’s role and the circumvention of their authority, is that the customary right, if demonstrably existing and valid under customary law, can challenge the registered title, especially if the registration process was flawed due to the disregard of customary procedures. The legal principle of *hak ulayat* (communal customary land rights) is relevant here. While registration provides legal certainty, it cannot extinguish pre-existing, valid customary rights if the registration process itself was tainted by the violation of those rights or the laws governing them. Therefore, the customary land right, being the older and originally recognized right, and its holder having followed customary procedures, would likely be upheld against a registered title obtained by circumventing these procedures, particularly in a jurisdiction that respects the integration of customary law. The correct answer hinges on the principle that a registered title obtained in violation of established customary rights and procedures, especially when those rights are recognized by national law, can be challenged and potentially invalidated. The absence of registration for the customary right is a weakness, but the flawed acquisition of the registered right is a more significant legal impediment.

The core of this question lies in understanding the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation, particularly as applied in the Indonesian legal context relevant to STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario presents a conflict between a general provision in a national law and a specific, later-enacted regional regulation. The principle of *lex posterior derogat legi priori* (a later law repeals an earlier one) is a fundamental tenet of legal hierarchy and temporal application. However, this principle is often nuanced by the principle of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* (a special law repeals a general law). In this case, the national law provides a general framework for land zoning, while the regional regulation addresses a specific aspect of land use within a particular area, potentially creating a more detailed or even conflicting rule for that specific locale. When a specific law or regulation directly contradicts a general law, the more specific provision typically prevails within its defined scope, even if it is chronologically earlier or later, provided it does not violate higher legal norms. However, the question implies the regional regulation is *later* enacted. Therefore, the interplay between *lex posterior* and *lex specialis* becomes critical. If the regional regulation is indeed a *lex specialis* that also happens to be *lex posterior*, its specific provisions for the designated region would generally supersede the general provisions of the national law within that region. The key is to determine if the regional regulation is a valid exercise of delegated authority and if its specific provisions are intended to carve out an exception or provide a more detailed rule for the area it governs. The STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law Entrance Exam would expect candidates to recognize that a specific, later regulation often takes precedence over a general, earlier one, especially when it addresses a particular subject matter or geographical area. The correct approach involves analyzing the intent and scope of both legislative acts and applying established principles of statutory interpretation to resolve the conflict. The correct answer hinges on the principle that a specific, later-enacted regulation addressing a particular subject matter within a defined jurisdiction generally overrides a more general, earlier law.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation, specifically how conflicting legal norms are resolved within a civil law system, which is characteristic of Indonesian legal education like that at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario presents a conflict between a general statutory provision and a more specific, later-enacted regulation. In legal hierarchy and interpretation, the principle of *lex posterior derogat priori* (a later law repeals an earlier one) and *lex specialis derogat legi generali* (a specific law overrides a general one) are paramount. When a specific regulation directly addresses the subject matter of a general statute, and the regulation is of a later date, both principles often converge to favor the specific, later regulation. The general statute might provide a broad framework, but the specific regulation offers detailed rules for a particular situation. The later enactment signifies a legislative intent to update or refine the law, and the specificity ensures that the more tailored rule applies to the precise circumstances it was designed for. Therefore, the specific, later-enacted regulation would generally take precedence over the earlier, general statutory provision in this context, guiding judicial and administrative decisions.

The core of this question lies in understanding the principle of *stare decisis* and its application within a common law system, which is foundational to legal education at institutions like STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. *Stare decisis*, meaning “to stand by things decided,” compels courts to follow precedents set by previous decisions in similar cases. When a higher court establishes a legal principle, lower courts within the same jurisdiction are bound to adhere to it. In this scenario, the Supreme Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Agung) has issued a ruling that clarifies the interpretation of a specific article in the Civil Code concerning contractual obligations. This ruling, by its very nature as a decision from the highest appellate court, creates a binding precedent. Therefore, all lower courts, including the District Court of Surabaya, must apply this clarified interpretation in future cases involving similar factual patterns and legal questions. The ruling establishes a new legal standard or reinforces an existing one in a definitive manner, making it an authoritative guide for judicial decision-making. Failing to follow such a precedent would undermine the consistency, predictability, and fairness of the legal system, which are paramount in legal scholarship and practice. The principle ensures that the law develops in a coherent and stable manner, allowing legal professionals and citizens to understand and rely upon established legal principles.

The question probes the understanding of legal principles governing the formation and enforceability of contracts, specifically focusing on the concept of “consideration” within the Indonesian legal framework, which is heavily influenced by civil law traditions. In civil law systems, while the explicit doctrine of “consideration” as understood in common law is not a direct equivalent, the concept of “cause” or “lawful purpose” serves a similar function in validating agreements. For an agreement to be legally binding and enforceable, there must be a valid reason or purpose behind the mutual obligations undertaken by the parties. This “cause” must be lawful and not contrary to public order or good morals. In the scenario presented, Pak Budi’s promise to pay Rp 5,000,000 to Ibu Citra is an offer. Ibu Citra’s action of diligently tending to Pak Budi’s ailing mother, which she undertakes in reliance on the promise, constitutes her acceptance and, crucially, the lawful purpose or “cause” for Pak Budi’s obligation. This act of care is not merely a moral duty but a performance that provides the legal basis for Pak Budi’s promise to become a binding obligation. The absence of a pre-existing legal duty for Ibu Citra to care for Pak Budi’s mother is key; her action is a voluntary undertaking motivated by Pak Budi’s promise. Therefore, the agreement is valid because Ibu Citra’s performance serves as the lawful cause for Pak Budi’s promise, making it an enforceable contract. The core legal concept tested here is the requirement of a valid cause for contractual obligations in Indonesian law, which aligns with the principles of contract law taught at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law.

The core principle being tested here is the concept of *ius sanguinis* (right of blood) versus *ius soli* (right of soil) in determining nationality, and how international legal principles interact with national legislation. While the scenario involves a child born abroad to Indonesian parents, the critical factor for STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law, with its focus on Indonesian legal frameworks and international law, is the specific provisions within Indonesian Law No. 12 of 2006 concerning Citizenship of Indonesia. This law generally follows *ius sanguinis* but has provisions for children born in Indonesia to foreign parents and children born abroad to Indonesian parents. In this case, the child is born to Indonesian parents in a country that follows *ius soli*. Indonesian law, specifically Article 4 of Law No. 12 of 2006, states that a child born from a legal marriage of an Indonesian father and a foreign mother is Indonesian if the child is born in Indonesian territory. Conversely, Article 6 states that a child born outside the territory of Indonesia from an Indonesian father and a foreign mother is Indonesian if the father reports the birth to the Indonesian representative abroad within one year of birth. More broadly, Article 2 states that Indonesian citizens are persons who according to laws and regulations are or become Indonesian citizens. Article 4(1) states that an Indonesian citizen is a person who at birth has the lineage from an Indonesian citizen. This establishes the primary basis of *ius sanguinis*. The child in the scenario is born to Indonesian parents. Therefore, the child is an Indonesian citizen by birth based on the lineage from Indonesian parents, irrespective of the country of birth or the laws of that country regarding citizenship. The fact that the child may also acquire citizenship of the birth country under its *ius soli* principle creates a potential dual nationality situation, which Indonesian law addresses through specific regulations on maintaining Indonesian citizenship. However, the initial determination of Indonesian citizenship for this child is firmly rooted in the *ius sanguinis* principle as applied by Indonesian law. Therefore, the child is an Indonesian citizen by virtue of their parents’ nationality.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation, particularly as applied in the Indonesian legal context relevant to STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario involves a dispute over land ownership where a new regulation potentially conflicts with an older, established legal precedent. The core issue is how a legal professional, trained at an institution like STIH Sunan Giri Malang, would approach resolving such a conflict. The principle of *lex posterior derogat priori* (a later law repeals an earlier one) is a fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation. However, this principle is not absolute and is subject to various interpretive nuances and the hierarchy of legal norms. In Indonesia, the hierarchy of laws is crucial, with the Constitution at the apex. While a new regulation might seem to supersede an old one, its validity and applicability depend on its consistency with higher legal norms and its specific scope. The question requires an understanding of how to balance the principle of legislative update with the need for legal certainty and the potential for legislative intent to preserve certain prior rights or situations. The correct approach involves a careful analysis of the new regulation’s wording, its legislative history, and its relationship with existing constitutional provisions and other relevant laws, rather than a simplistic application of the *lex posterior* rule. The emphasis on “harmonizing” the new regulation with existing legal frameworks and considering the “spirit of the law” reflects a sophisticated legal analytical approach expected of STIH Sunan Giri Malang graduates. The other options represent less nuanced or potentially erroneous legal approaches: blindly applying the new law without considering its context, prioritizing older laws despite a new one existing, or focusing solely on the procedural aspects without substantive legal analysis. The correct answer emphasizes a comprehensive, context-aware interpretation that upholds legal certainty and justice.

The core principle being tested here is the concept of *ius sanguinis* (right of blood) versus *ius soli* (right of soil) in determining nationality, and how international law and national legislation interact. While the scenario involves a hypothetical situation, the underlying legal framework for acquiring nationality is crucial for understanding international legal principles relevant to a law college. The question assesses the candidate’s ability to apply these principles to a complex, multi-jurisdictional scenario, reflecting the nuanced understanding expected at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The explanation focuses on the legal basis for nationality acquisition, the distinction between birthright citizenship and descent-based citizenship, and the potential for dual nationality, all of which are foundational concepts in public international law and comparative law, areas of study at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario requires discerning which legal system’s principles would likely prevail or how conflicts might be resolved, emphasizing the practical application of legal theory.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation as applied within the Indonesian legal framework, specifically relevant to the curriculum at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario presents a conflict between a general statutory provision and a more specific, later-enacted regulation. In legal hermeneutics, the principle of *lex posterior derogat priori* (a later law repeals an earlier one) is a key tenet. However, this principle is often nuanced by the principle of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* (a special law repeals a general law). When a specific law or regulation addresses a particular subject matter, it generally takes precedence over a general law that might also cover that subject, even if the general law was enacted later. This is because the specific law is presumed to reflect a more precise legislative intent for that particular situation. In this case, the general Civil Code provision regarding contractual obligations is the earlier law, while the specific ministerial regulation concerning digital service agreements is the later law. However, the ministerial regulation is also more specific to the context of digital services. Therefore, the principle of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* is the most applicable and determinative principle for resolving this conflict, as the ministerial regulation provides a tailored framework for digital contracts, overriding the more general provisions of the Civil Code where they overlap and conflict. The correct application of these principles is crucial for legal professionals in Indonesia, emphasizing the need for careful analysis of legislative hierarchy and specificity.

The scenario describes a situation where a legislative body is considering a new regulation that aims to balance economic development with environmental protection. The core of the question lies in identifying the legal principle that best guides such a balancing act within the framework of Indonesian law, particularly as it pertains to the mandate of a law faculty like STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The principle of “Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generali” (a special law repeals a general law) is relevant when there are conflicting laws, but it doesn’t directly address the *process* of balancing competing interests within a single regulatory framework. Similarly, “Pacta Sunt Servanda” (agreements must be kept) is fundamental to contract law and international treaties, not directly to domestic regulatory balancing. “Audi et Alteram Partem” (hear the other side) is a principle of natural justice, ensuring fairness in proceedings, but it doesn’t dictate the outcome of the balancing itself. The principle of “Proportionality” (or “Kesesuaian” in Indonesian legal discourse) is the most fitting. It requires that any measure taken by the state, especially when restricting rights or imposing burdens, must be appropriate, necessary, and balanced in relation to the legitimate aim pursued. In this context, the regulation must be proportionate to the goals of both economic growth and environmental preservation, ensuring that neither objective is unduly sacrificed for the other. This aligns with the broader legal and ethical considerations taught at institutions like STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law, which emphasize the responsible exercise of state power and the protection of societal welfare through reasoned legal frameworks.

The scenario presented involves a dispute over land ownership in Indonesia, specifically concerning the validity of a customary land title (adat) versus a registered land certificate issued under the Agrarian Law. The core legal issue is the hierarchy and recognition of different forms of land rights. In Indonesian land law, while customary rights are acknowledged, the Agrarian Law (Undang-Undang Pokok Agraria No. 5 Tahun 1960) establishes a system of registered land rights, such as Hak Milik (Ownership Rights), which are intended to provide legal certainty and security. When a land certificate is issued, it signifies that the land has undergone a formal registration process, creating a presumption of ownership and a stronger legal standing against competing claims, especially those based on unregistered customary rights. The principle of legal certainty (kepastian hukum) and the state’s role in regulating land ownership are paramount. Therefore, a validly issued land certificate generally supersedes an unregistered customary claim, particularly when the certificate holder acquired it in good faith and without knowledge of the customary claim. The legal framework prioritizes the formal, state-recognized system for resolving land disputes to ensure clarity and prevent perpetual conflicts. The existence of a registered certificate provides a stronger legal basis for ownership than an unformalized customary claim, which may be difficult to prove and enforce against a registered title.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and argumentation, specifically as they relate to the development of legal precedent within a common law system, a core concept for aspiring legal scholars at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario presents a hypothetical judicial decision that deviates from established norms. To determine the most appropriate legal principle governing this situation, one must analyze the nature of the deviation. If the deviation is a deliberate departure from a prior ruling due to a perceived flaw or changed societal context, it signifies the establishment of a new precedent, effectively overturning or modifying the old one. This process is central to the dynamism of common law, allowing it to adapt. Conversely, if the deviation is merely an erroneous application or misinterpretation of existing law, it would not create a new binding precedent but rather a potentially flawed judicial act. The concept of *stare decisis*, the principle of following precedent, is paramount here. However, common law systems also allow for the evolution of law through judicial interpretation and, in some cases, the overturning of prior decisions when they are deemed unjust or outdated. The scenario implies a conscious judicial act to alter the legal landscape, not a simple mistake. Therefore, the principle that best describes the creation of a new legal standard through a reasoned departure from existing case law is the establishment of a new precedent. This aligns with the academic rigor expected at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law, where understanding the evolution of legal principles is crucial.

The core of this question lies in understanding the foundational principles of legal reasoning and their application within the Indonesian legal framework, particularly as it pertains to the STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law’s curriculum. The scenario presents a conflict between a local customary law (adat) and a national statutory law. The principle of *lex superior derogat legi inferiori* (a superior law repeals an inferior law) is paramount here. In Indonesia, national laws enacted by the central government, such as those passed by the DPR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat), generally hold a higher legal standing than local customary laws, which often derive their authority from historical practice and recognition rather than explicit legislative enactment at the national level. While the Indonesian legal system acknowledges and respects customary law, its application is often subordinate to codified national legislation, especially when there is a direct conflict. Therefore, the national statutory law prohibiting the practice would prevail. The STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law, as an institution dedicated to legal education, would emphasize the hierarchical structure of Indonesian law and the supremacy of national legislation in resolving such disputes. The ability to identify the applicable legal hierarchy and apply it to a concrete situation is a critical skill for any law student. The question tests the candidate’s understanding of legal pluralism within Indonesia and the practical implications of legal hierarchy in resolving conflicts between different legal orders. This aligns with the rigorous analytical training expected at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law, where students are trained to dissect complex legal issues and apply established legal principles.

The scenario describes a situation where a local community in Malang, represented by Bapak Hadi, is seeking legal recourse against a new industrial development project that allegedly pollutes the local river, impacting their livelihoods and health. The core legal issue revolves around environmental protection and the rights of citizens to a healthy environment. In Indonesian law, particularly concerning environmental law and administrative law, the principle of *lex specialis derogat legi generali* (a special law repeals a general law) is crucial when multiple legal norms might apply. The Environmental Law (Undang-Undang No. 32 Tahun 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management) provides specific mechanisms and principles for addressing environmental damage and pollution, including citizen lawsuits and the precautionary principle. While general civil law principles regarding torts or damages could be invoked, the Environmental Law offers a more tailored and comprehensive framework for this specific type of dispute. Therefore, the most appropriate legal basis for Bapak Hadi and the community to pursue their claim, ensuring the most effective and specific legal remedies, would be to rely on the provisions within the Environmental Law. This law outlines procedures for environmental impact assessments, pollution control standards, and avenues for public participation and legal action in environmental matters, making it the *lex specialis* in this context. The other options, while potentially relevant in broader legal contexts, are less specific to the environmental pollution dispute. General administrative law might govern the permitting process, but the direct claim for pollution damage and cessation of harmful activities falls more squarely under environmental statutes. Civil tort law could be used for damages, but it might not provide the same preventative or restorative environmental remedies as the specialized environmental legislation. Public international law is generally not the primary framework for domestic environmental disputes unless there are transboundary elements or specific international treaty obligations invoked within domestic courts.

The question probes the understanding of the principle of *stare decisis* and its application within a common law system, specifically in the context of a hypothetical legal challenge at STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario involves a novel interpretation of a statute by a lower court, which then faces appellate review. The core issue is whether the appellate court is bound by a previous, albeit arguably misapplied, precedent from a higher court on a similar statutory interpretation. In a common law jurisdiction, appellate courts are generally bound by the decisions of higher courts within the same jurisdiction. This doctrine, known as *stare decisis* (Latin for “to stand by things decided”), promotes legal certainty, predictability, and fairness. When a higher court has ruled on a specific legal question, lower courts are obligated to follow that ruling. However, the question presents a nuance: the previous precedent might have been based on a flawed interpretation or a different factual matrix. The appellate court’s primary duty is to uphold the law as established by higher authorities. If the precedent from the Supreme Court of Indonesia (or a comparable highest judicial body in the relevant jurisdiction) exists, even if its reasoning is questioned, the appellate court must generally adhere to it. Deviating from established precedent without a compelling reason, such as a clear overruling by the same or a higher court, or a fundamental change in circumstances that renders the precedent unworkable, would undermine the principle of *stare decisis*. Therefore, the appellate court, while reviewing the lower court’s decision, would be bound by the Supreme Court’s prior interpretation, even if it believes that interpretation was erroneous. The correct course of action for the appellate court is to follow the binding precedent. The lower court’s decision, which diverged from this precedent, would likely be overturned. The appellate court cannot simply disregard a binding precedent based on its own assessment of its correctness or applicability to a slightly different factual scenario. The proper channel for challenging or modifying a precedent lies with the highest court itself.

The question probes the understanding of the foundational principles of legal reasoning and statutory interpretation, particularly as applied in the Indonesian legal context, which is the focus of STIH Sunan Giri Malang College of Law. The scenario involves a dispute over land ownership based on a customary law agreement versus a modern land registration certificate. The core issue is how a legal scholar at STIH Sunan Giri Malang would approach resolving such a conflict, considering the hierarchy of legal sources and the principles of legal certainty and justice. In Indonesian law, while statutory law (undang-undang) generally holds a higher position, customary law (hukum adat) retains significant relevance, especially in matters of land ownership in many regions. The Land Law (Undang-Undang Pokok Agraria) itself acknowledges the existence and application of customary law as long as it does not contradict national law and principles of justice. Therefore, a legal scholar would need to analyze the interplay between these two legal systems. The process of resolving this would involve: 1. **Identifying the applicable legal norms:** This includes both the provisions of the Land Law and relevant customary law principles governing land tenure in the specific region. 2. **Determining the hierarchy and potential conflict:** Understanding how the Land Law, as national legislation, interacts with customary law. The Land Law does not abolish customary law but seeks to harmonize it with national legal principles. 3. **Applying principles of legal interpretation:** This might involve purposive interpretation to understand the intent behind both the customary agreement and the Land Law, as well as the principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori (later law repeals earlier law) if there’s a direct conflict, though in this case, it’s more about coexistence and harmonization. 4. **Considering principles of justice and legal certainty:** Balancing the need for established legal certainty (represented by the certificate) with the principles of justice and fairness that might be upheld by the customary agreement, especially if the customary law was the primary basis for land use for a long period. The most appropriate approach for a legal scholar at STIH Sunan Giri Malang would be to acknowledge the validity of both legal sources and seek a harmonious interpretation that upholds the spirit of the Land Law while respecting the historical and social context of customary law. This involves a careful examination of the specific customary law in question and how it has been historically recognized and applied, alongside the legal standing of the land certificate. The Land Law (UU No. 5 Tahun 1960) itself provides a framework for this, recognizing customary rights (hak ulayat) and their conversion into modern land rights, but this process requires careful legal scrutiny. The legal scholar would advocate for a resolution that integrates these elements, prioritizing the legal framework that best achieves justice and legal certainty within the Indonesian legal pluralism. The correct answer reflects this nuanced approach of harmonizing different legal sources.