https://scholar.ummetro.ac.id/index.php/juridischdenken en-US [email protected] (adhimaz kondang pribadi. SH,.MH.) [email protected] (adhimaz) Tue, 25 Aug 2026 17:54:44 +0700 OJS 3.1.1.4 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 https://scholar.ummetro.ac.id/index.php/juridischdenken/article/view/12919 <p>The growth of electronic commerce has placed personal data at the centre of consumer transactions and, with it, has exposed consumers to harm when platforms fail to protect that data. This article examines the civil-law consequences of personal data breaches committed by e-commerce platforms under Indonesian law. It asks how platform duties, breach, attribution, causation, damage and compensation should be connected within a single coherent private-law analysis. The study applies normative legal research using statutory, conceptual and comparative approaches, examining Law Number 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection, the Indonesian Civil Code, Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection and the electronic-system framework, with the European General Data Protection Regulation and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as comparators. The article finds that Indonesian law already contains every ingredient required for a civil claim but distributes them across regimes that are not doctrinally connected, and that the compensation right in Article 12(1) of the PDP Law remains procedurally incomplete because the implementing regulation contemplated by Article 12(2) has not yet been enacted. It develops a Civil Liability Chain comprising legal duty, breach, attribution, causation, damage, civil liability and remedy, and tests that chain against the Tokopedia data-breach incident as a doctrinal illustration rather than as a retrospective application of the 2022 statute. The article argues that effective consumer redress requires an explicit causal and remedial bridge between statutory data-protection duties and Indonesian civil liability.</p> Juridisch Denken Copyright (c) 2026 JURIDISCH DENKEN https://scholar.ummetro.ac.id/index.php/juridischdenken/article/view/12919 Tue, 25 Aug 2026 15:37:27 +0700 https://scholar.ummetro.ac.id/index.php/juridischdenken/article/view/12920 <p>Article 6 of Law Number 4 of 1996 grants the first mortgage holder the right to sell the collateral on its own authority, while Article 14 attaches executorial force to the Mortgage Certificate, whose implementation follows Article 224 HIR and therefore requires a court order. Existing scholarship has mapped this norm conflict thoroughly but has not explained how first-instance courts actually resolve it in concrete cases. This study asks how auctions based on an executorial title are implemented in mortgage execution and what impedes their effectiveness. It uses a normative-empirical method combining statutory analysis with interviews at the Metro District Court Class IB. The study finds that execution proceeds through an execution request, aanmaning, execution seizure, an auction order, and an auction conducted by the KPKNL. Its principal finding is that the preference for fiat executie is driven not by normative necessity but by mitigation of the risk that the auction will be annulled, a phenomenon this article terms the prudentialisation of parate executie, which secures legal certainty at the cost of the simple, swift and low-cost execution the statute intended. Mapping six impediments onto Soekanto’s framework shows that only one requires legislative amendment.</p> Juridisch Denken Copyright (c) 2026 JURIDISCH DENKEN https://scholar.ummetro.ac.id/index.php/juridischdenken/article/view/12920 Tue, 25 Aug 2026 17:39:12 +0700