English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Article 5 (1) of Law Number 48 Year 2009 concerning Judicial Power becomes ineffective if acentralistic ideology still working  in view of the judge. The type of study used in this researchwas a non-doctrinal legal studies (sociolegal research). Research conducted in the DistrictCourt and Religious Court in Madura based on the judges perception by meaning of article 5paragraph (1) law 48/2009 and justices consideration to verdict making process. The resultsshowing the judges majority interpret the Article 5, paragraph 1 Law 28/2009 to legaldiscovery (rechtsvinding) as an efforts if a legal vacuum, otherwise the judges did notinterpret used living law when there are legal gaps. Thus showing domination of the state lawover the law that lives in society. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v5i2.4190

jurnal cita hukum/jurnal cita hukum

The Ideological Study of Judicials From The Formal Centralistis to The Legal Pluralism (Analysis of the Meaning of Judge on Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 Year 2009 on Judicial Power)