Legal Examination of the Constitutional Court Number 28/PUU-XI/2013 Concerning the Case of Judicial Review of Law Number 17 of 2012 Concerning Cooperatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to understand the legal review on Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 28/PUU-XI/2013 on the review of Law No. 17 of 2012 on Cooperatives against The 1945 Constitution. The benefits of this research are socialization and provide legal awareness about cooperatives activities in Indonesia. This research uses a normative approach that focuses on studying the legal and regulatory norms associated with the object of the problem. The technical analysis used in this study is the Hermeneutic and Interpretation analysis methods. The results of the study indicate that Phrase “natural person” in the cooperatives sense was based on Article 1 point 1 of Law No. 17 of 2012 is against Article 33 section (1) of The 1945 Constitution because that definition leads to individualism. Furthermore, although the Petitioner's petition is only regarding certain articles it contains substantial norm content, it will cause other articles in Law No. 17 of 2012 has no binding legal force. Therefore the Petitioner's petition must be declared in accordance with the law for all contents of Law No. 17 of 2012. As for the sake of legal certainty, Law No. 25 of 1992 valid for a while awaiting the establishment of a new Law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".