SIGn Journal of Social Science

Dynamics of Post-Defense Gift-Giving Among Students: Between Appreciation, Trends, and Financial Pressure

2025-12-16T13:55:17+00:00

Post-defense gift-giving practices in higher education have undergone a fundamental transformation. This practice has shifted from a mere emotional expression to a complex and dilemmatic sociological phenomenon. This study aims to critique the hegemony of digital trends and psychological pressure manifested as the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO). Such pressure transforms the tradition of appreciation into a ritual of simulacra that obscures the essence of academic celebration. This research employs a qualitative design with a phenomenological approach. Its objective is to explore the intersubjective experiences of 11 students selected through purposive sampling. Data were analyzed in depth using a synthesis of critical theories by Baudrillard and Mauss. The research results successfully deconstruct three key findings. First, the fundamental motive for gift-giving has shifted from a drive of sincere affection to a strategic effort of self-construal under the control of social media algorithms. Second, the gift object is no longer valued for its utility but operates as a sign value. This reproduces social stratification and class hierarchy through the consumption of global brands. Third, the creation of a reciprocity paradox. The illusion of group solidarity is inherently mechanical and comes at a high cost: economic alienation and the pressure of a morally binding debt of gratitude. This study concludes that student social interaction has been co-opted by market logic. Therefore, there is an urgent need to strengthen symbolic and financial literacy to liberate students from the trap of consumerism disguised as social support. Additionally, a more substantial, inclusive, and humanizing redefinition of academic solidarity is required.

Harmonization of Electricity Construction Claim Prevention Mechanisms: Integration of Pre-Construction Documents, FIDIC Standards, and Standing Dispute Boards

2025-12-29T12:34:29+00:00

Construction disputes in national strategic electricity projects often hinder cost and time efficiency. This problem is fundamentally rooted in pre-construction document uncertainty and the regulatory gap between national contracts and international standards. This research aims to analyze the juridical implications of incomplete Employer’s Requirements documents on claim validity. It also evaluates gaps in notification mechanisms and differences in work between SOE contract standards and the FIDIC Silver Book, and constructs a dispute-prevention harmonization model. The research method used is normative legal research, with statutory, comparative, and case approaches, applied to the Asahan 3 HEPP project. The results show that disputes in the execution phase are residues of errors in concept design in the pre-construction phase. This condition creates information asymmetry and injures the principle of good faith. Comparative analysis reveals significant gaps in variation and substantiation procedures. Bureaucratic rigidity in national contracts due to the disharmony between Law Number 2 of 2017 and the state finance regime hinders rapid resolution compared to the FIDIC early warning system. However, empirical evidence shows that SDB activation can effectively mitigate conflict escalation. The research concludes that the ideal harmonization model must transform the paradigm from dispute resolution to dispute prevention. This is achieved by integrating SDB institutionalization with the validity of BIM digital data as indisputable primary evidence. This step is necessary to guarantee legal certainty and the sustainability of national strategic projects.

Legal Implications of Extension of Time in Power Plant Construction Projects: A Comparative Study of FIDIC and Indonesian Law

2025-12-29T12:34:29+00:00

Disputes related to EoT in electricity EPC projects frequently escalate due to normative conflicts. This conflict arises between the time-bar clause in the FIDIC international contract standards, characterized by strict liability, and the principle of equity in Indonesian civil law. This research aims to analyze the validity of the time-bar clause in light of the principle of good faith, qualify the characteristics of excusable delay in concurrent delay situations, and reconstruct effective dispute-resolution mechanisms. The research method employed is a normative juridical approach, with comparative and empirical case study methods, applied to power plant projects. The results indicate that the application of claim rights forfeiture sanctions due to administrative notification delays possesses conditionally binding force. Such provisions can be set aside if the Service User is proven to have violated the prevention principle. Furthermore, in concurrent delay situations, national law mandates the proportional application of the apportionment principle. This research also finds that the Standing Dispute Board, as provided for in PUPR Ministerial Regulation Number 11 of 2021, is a more effective preventive instrument than arbitration for maintaining project cash flow liquidity. It is concluded that legal harmonization through teleological contract interpretation and the strengthening of Dispute Board executive regulations is imperative. The implications of these findings demand that stakeholders revise the Particular Conditions of contract to accommodate equitable administrative flexibility, ensuring legal certainty and the sustainability of national strategic infrastructure.

Disintermediation of Fresh Fish Distribution: Analysis of Online Market Efficiency and Logistics Barriers in Makassar City

2025-12-29T12:34:28+00:00

The acceleration of digital economic transformation in the national fishery sector offers potential for allocative efficiency by shortening conventional supply chains, yet its implementation often clashes with the reality of stagnant physical infrastructure. This study aims to analyze disintermediation mechanisms arising from online market adoption, evaluate the efficiency of cold chain logistics, and formulate strengthening strategies for the integrative distribution system in Makassar City. Using a qualitative descriptive research design, data were collected via triangulation through field observations at physical distribution nodes in Paotere Fish Auction Market, transaction activity observations on marketplace platforms, and documentation studies, which were then analyzed using the interactive model by Miles et al. The results reveal a sharp logistics paradox. On the one hand, the online market successfully enabled disintermediation, increased price transparency, and severed fishermen’s dependence on traditional intermediaries. However, fundamental vulnerabilities were identified due to the absence of micro-scale cooling facilities and the use of non-standard last-mile delivery fleets. This condition results in accumulated risks of biological quality degradation and hidden operational cost inefficiencies. The study concludes that digital superstructure dominance without an adequate physical infrastructure foundation only yields pseudo-efficiency, threatening business sustainability. As a managerial implication, this study recommends implementing a hybrid logistics ecosystem through a Hub-and-Spoke model, transforming the Fish Auction Market into cold-chain-based fulfillment centers, supported by Public-Private Partnership policy synergy and the social engineering of fishermen’s logistics literacy.

The Paradigm of Meaningful Guilty Pleas: Balancing Procedural Efficiency and Substantive Justice in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System

2026-01-13T00:16:10+00:00

This study is motivated by the systemic dysfunction of the Indonesian criminal justice system, characterized by case backlogs and overcrowding in correctional institutions. This condition prompted the adoption of the plea bargain mechanism in Article 78 of the New Criminal Procedure Code. However, the application of this special track potentially becomes trapped in procedural pragmatism that neglects the search for material truth and the essence of substantive justice. The objective of this study is to formulate the Meaningful Guilty Plea paradigm as a synchronization instrument between the procedural efficiency of Article 78 of the New Criminal Procedure Code and substantive justice values in the sentencing guidelines of Article 54 of the New Penal Code. The research method used is normative legal research, employing statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches through qualitative-prescriptive analysis. The results indicate that plea bargain formalism requires a rigid material foundation so that granting sentence reduction is not speculative-transactional in nature. The construction of the meaningful guilty plea paradigm requires examining the quality of the defendant’s statement, based on indicators of sincere remorse, moral responsibility, and commitment to victim recovery, to ensure sentencing proportionality. This synchronization enables a transition from a retributive pattern to a restorative-corrective model, as mandated by the New Penal Code. The conclusion asserts that procedural efficiency must be governed by active judicial control, achieved through the integration of sentencing guidelines to prevent judicial decision-making disparities. This study recommends the formulation of implementing regulations in the form of sentencing guidelines that integrate the plea-bargaining mechanism nationwide as a crucial implementation step following the recent enforcement of the new criminal law on January 2, 2026. Under this ideal model, the criminal justice system is expected to achieve sustainable harmony between the speed of processes and the quality of decisions that are substantively just for both the defendant and the victim.

The Dialectics of Judicial Pardon as a Safety Valve in the Offense of Murder: A Substantive Justice Analysis under Law Number 1 of 2023

2026-01-13T00:16:10+00:00

The fundamental transformation of national criminal law through the promulgation of the New Penal Code promotes a paradigm of substantive justice that triggers a normative dialectic regarding the existence of the formal legality principle of colonial legacy. This study aims to critically analyze the position of judicial pardon as an exceptional veiligheidsklep instrument to accommodate legal facts in specific murder offenses, while simultaneously assessing its effectiveness in maintaining the balance between legal certainty and human rights protection. The research method employed is normative legal research with statute, conceptual, and comparative approaches analyzed qualitatively using deductive logic and the legal dialectic method. The results indicate that the limitative restrictions of judicial pardon in Article 70 section (2) of the New Penal Code clash diametrically with the mandate of Article 53 section (2) of the Law, which obligates judges to prioritize substantive justice over formal legal certainty. These findings affirm that judicial pardon functions as a final filter post-operationalization of the primary filter, in the form of conventional grounds for excluding punishment, such as weer-exces and overmacht. Through the analysis of Decision Number 4/Pid.B/2024/PN Jnp, it is proven that exceptional judicial pardon in murder offenses with a low degree of culpability constitutes a judicial necessity to realize the objectives of restorative justice and the decolonization of national criminal law. The conclusion of this study emphasizes that judicial pardon is an instrument for salvaging human dignity and requires the support of accountable sentencing guidelines. Therefore, the Supreme Court is advised to immediately establish a Regulation regulating qualitative parameters for the application of pardon in grave offenses to avoid sentencing disparities and ensure the moral legitimacy of the law in the future Indonesian criminal justice system.

Effectiveness of the BANI Binding Opinion in the Resolution of Construction Contract Interpretation Disputes: A Case Study of the Kalimantan Steam Power Plant (2x5 MW) Project

2026-01-19T07:33:43+00:00

Construction disputes in Indonesia are often rooted in differences in the interpretation of contract clauses. This is reflected in the dispute between PT PLN (Persero) and PT XXX over the Kalimantan Steam Power Plant (2x5 MW) development project, regarding claims for an extension of time and additional cost compensation due to social access obstacles. This research aims to conduct a juridical analysis of problems in the interpretation of contract clauses. Additionally, this research constructs the legal basis for granting EoT and real cost compensation, and evaluates the effectiveness and executive power of the BANI Binding Opinion as an instrument of legal certainty. The research method used is normative juridical, through the statute and case approaches to the BANI Binding Opinion Number: XX/BO-BANI/2017 document, and the conceptual approach. The research results reveal that the interpretational deadlock was triggered by the parties’ failure to reach an agreement regarding the allocation of external obstacle risks beyond the contractor’s control. Therefore, BANI determined that a time extension and cost compensation should be granted using the actual implementation cost difference method, based on the principles of propriety and contractual justice, to restore the service provider’s economic position. It is concluded that the BANI Binding Opinion is a highly effective, efficient dispute resolution solution, and possesses stable executive power as regulated in Article 52 and Article 53 of Law Number 30 of 1999. This instrument provides the parties with final and binding legal certainty. This mechanism also mitigates the risk of project termination by registering the decision at the district court without going through an adversarial adjudication process.

Absolute Competence and Characteristics of the Object of State Administrative Disputes in Electricity Infrastructure Construction

2026-01-19T07:33:43+00:00

National electricity infrastructure development often triggers complex construction disputes due to the overlap between civil law and state administrative law. This research aims to analyze the parameters of the State Administrative Court’s absolute competence, identify the juridical characteristics of dispute objects, and formulate a legal protection framework for construction service providers. The research method utilized is normative legal research, with a statute-based and conceptual approach. Data were analyzed qualitatively through deductive reasoning on twenty authoritative secondary literature sources. The research results show that the absolute competence of the administrative judiciary is rigidly determined by the source of public authority (acta jure imperii) used by the government in its capacity as manager of the strategic energy sector. The characteristics of dispute objects in the electricity ecosystem have undergone significant expansion following the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014. These objects now encompass factual actions such as change order instructions, location determination, and blacklist administrative sanctions. The analysis shows that state administrative officials’ decisions in the substation and power transmission licensing process constitute valid grounds for judicial review to prevent abuse of discretion. The research conclusion affirms that the legal reasoning pattern must emphasize legality review based on the General Principles of Good Administration. Optimizing the decision suspension instrument is also required as an emergency measure to protect business actors. More harmonious alignment between construction service law and administrative law is required to ensure legal certainty and the sustainability of national electricity infrastructure development.

Dialectics of the Business Judgment Rule and General Principles of Good Administration in Land Acquisition and Permitting for Electricity Sector Infrastructure

2026-01-19T07:33:43+00:00

This study examines the legal issues arising from the State Administrative Court’s overlapping jurisdiction over actions by Electricity SOE Directors that possess hybrid characteristics as both private and public entities. The core issue lies in the legal uncertainty surrounding the boundaries of the administrative court’s absolute competence in determining the business discretion of Directors in national strategic projects. Such actions are frequently drawn into the realm of administrative disputes through the expansion of the meaning of the State Administrative Decision. This study aims to analyze the legal standing of SOE Directors, dissect the dialectics between the BJR doctrine and the General Principles of Good Administration in land acquisition and permitting, and formulate norm reconstruction through internal procedural standardization. The research method employed is normative legal research, using the statute and conceptual approaches through prescriptive analysis of nine primary legal instruments and twenty-eight secondary legal materials. The results indicate that integrating BJR into the General Principles of Good Administration is imperative to protect managerial discretion from excessive judicial intervention. A crucial finding in this study emphasizes that the identification of the source of power, whether contractual or regulatory, is the key to determining the qualification of a decision as a private legal act to activate the exception in Article 2 point a of Law Number 9 of 2004. The implications of this study recommend standardizing SOE internal procedures in line with Supreme Court Circular Number 2 of 2019. This is essential to ensure that disputes arising from a breach of contract by the authority remain within the exclusive competence of the civil court. This effort is undertaken to achieve legal certainty in accelerating national energy infrastructure.

Limitation of Authority of the BANI Arbitration Center in Government Construction Contract Disputes within the Electricity Sector

2026-01-19T07:33:43+00:00

Electricity infrastructure development is a national strategic sector directly intersecting with energy sovereignty and public interest. Therefore, construction contract disputes therein involve an intersection between private law and public law regimes. This research aims to critically analyze the basis of BANI’s legitimacy and the limitations of its authority in resolving government-construction contract disputes in the electricity sector. This is intended to guarantee the protection of energy sovereignty and the principle of legality in government administration. The research method applied is a normative juridical approach using the statute, conceptual, and case approaches, with a prescriptive, deductive syllogism analysis technique. The research results indicate that BANI’s legitimacy is derivative and limited. The arbitration institution lacks the adjudicative authority to review the validity of state administrative decisions or to set aside public electricity safety standards. These findings assert that BANI’s role must be reconstructed to remain within the corridor of purely commercial aspects without exceeding the administrative authority of public officials (ultra vires) in managing national strategic infrastructure. In conclusion, the limitation of arbitration authority is a manifestation of the limited delegation of authority doctrine, necessary to maintain state administration accountability while providing legal certainty for energy investment. This reconstruction makes a theoretical contribution by harmonizing party autonomy in civil law with legal sovereignty in the realms of Constitutional Law and State Administrative Law.

Implementation of the Musyarakah Mutanaqishah Contract on KPR Platinum BTN iB: A Case Study at the Depok Sharia Branch Office

2026-02-09T15:45:40+00:00

Although administratively appearing compliant, this research reveals a tension between formal compliance and empirical reality in the implementation of the MMQ contract, particularly in responding to developer marketing strategies, such as the 0% DP scheme. This study aims to analyze the administrative construction of the contract to accommodate developer promos, evaluate the validity of hishshah formation, and critique the legal implications of early asset ownership transfers. The research method employs a juridical-empirical approach through a case study at the BTN Sharia Depok Branch Office, using triangulation data collection techniques consisting of in-depth interviews, system observation, and critical document review of Financing Approval Letters and Financing Contracts. The results indicate a fundamental distortion in which the “mandatory paid-off receipt” administrative mechanism is used as a formal legitimation tool to bridge the gap between the bank’s Standard Operating Procedures requiring a down payment and the developer’s marketing strategy (gimmick) that eliminates it. This condition causes a legal defect in hishshah formation due to the violation of the cash capital requirement in syirkah, and creates unfair risk distribution consequent to the certificate title transfer practice and aggressive collateral execution clauses. This study concludes that the administrative response to such developer promos can shift contract substance to full debt financing wrapped in a partnership label, thereby recommending stricter technical regulations from relevant authorities to filter third-party promotion schemes incompatible with contract principles.