SHARIAsource

In this case the court released the accused and dismissed the prosecution's case on the grounds that the prosecution's submissions had failed to meet the requirements contained in art 191 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.

In this case the court released the three co-accused and dismissed the prosecution's case on the grounds that the prosecution's submissions had failed to meet the requirements contained in art 191 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.

In this case the court released the accused and dismissed the prosecution's case on the grounds that the prosecution's submissions had failed to meet the requirements contained in art 191 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.

In this case the court released the accused and dismissed the prosecution's case on the grounds that the prosecution's submissions had failed to meet the requirements contained in art 191 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.

This regional regulation makes provision for the protection of women and children from violence. The regulation places the onus on families and parents to protect women and children from all forms of violence by instilling in each other, among other values, values relating to religion.

This provincial regulation regulates sexual conduct, and the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs. It emphasises the role of society in preventing such behaviours for the purposes of building a society based on the principles of Islam.

This statute defines domestic violence as physicial, psychological or sexual violence, or domestic neglect. It outlines the rights of victims, including rights to protective and rehabilitative services, and sets out the possible punitive measures perpetrators may face.

This statute makes amendments to Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, and is designed to further improve protections afforded to children.

This regional regulation acknowledges in its preamble that one of its purposes is to anticipate the negative impact the increased distribution of alcohol would have on the people of Banjarmasin. Among other provisions and conditions, it prohibits all activities related to the distribution of alcohol, and obligates the people of Banjarmasin to report to law enforcement agencies any such activities as they become aware of them. It also guarantees their confidentiality and legal protection should they make such a report. Contravention of these prohibitions can result in six months imprisonment or a fine of up to IDR 50 million, as well as seizure and destruction of the alcoholic beverages subject of the sanction.

This statute provides amendments to Law No. 14 of 1970 on Judicial Authority Principles. Specifically, the amendments set in motion the gradual transfer (over a five-year period) of judicial bodies to become under the control of the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung) organisationally, administratively, and financially. The amendments also provide that group criminal activity committed by officers of the court is to be adjudicated by the civil judiciary, unless the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, by official decree (Keputusan), believes the conduct should be adjudicated by a military court.

This statute defines a psychotropic as a substance or medicine, either natural or synthetic, that is not a narcotic, that has a psychoative effect on the nervous system, causing particular changes in a person's mental activity and behaviour. The statute regulates, among other psychotropic-related topics, the production, dissemination, transfer, exportation and importation, transportation, labelling, and government monitoring, of psychotropics.

This statute defines what is meant by narcotics, and, among other narcotics-related topics, regulates its production, importation and exportation, dissemination, storage and reportage, government monitoring, treatment and rehabilitation, distruction, and criminal investigations into narcotics-related crime. The statute was subsequently replaced by Law No. 35 of 2009.

This circular outlines the implementational requirements of different levels of government vis-a-vis the Joint Decree of the Minister of Religion, Attorney-General and Internal Affairs Minister No. 3 of 2008, which dramatically curbed the public practice and dissemination of so-called 'deviant' beliefs and teachings of the Jemaat Ahmadiyah Indonesia.

This challenge to the validity of Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 on the Surveillance and Control of Alcoholic Beverages was submitted by Front Pembela Islam (FPI - the Islamic Defenders' Front), represented by Habib Muhammad Rizieq Syihab, the founder and chairperson of FPI, and KH. Ahmad Sabri Lubis, the secterary-general of FPI.

The applicant cited several teachings from the Qur'an and Hadith, the Holy Bible, and Buddhism that prohibit the consumption of alcohol, as well as Hinduism, which discourages excessive consumption of alcohol. As a state based on the principle of One Almighty God (Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa), the applicant submitted that Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 should, therefore, be invalidated for contradicting the religious values contained in Pancasila ('five principles' - Indonesian state ideology) and the 1945 Constitution because not one religion in Indonesia permitted or deemed halal the consumption of any alcoholic beverage. The applicant also cited the physical effects alcohol consumption can have on people, as well as other people who may fall victim to alcohol-induced theft, battery, abuse, rape, and even murder.

The applicant also submitted that Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 was contrary to several national statutes, including arts 46 and 47 of Law No. 36 of 2009 on Health. This was because the decree only categorised alcohol rather than prohibiting it, while the detrimental effect alcohol can have on health repudiates the aim of arts 46 and 47, which is to improve the health of Indonesian citizens.

The court questioned whether the applicant believed its rights and/or authority had suffered because of Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997. It also questioned whether the applicant believed it had suffered any specific and actual loss or could potentially suffer any loss, and whether or not there was a causal relationship between that loss and the decree it was seeking to impugn. The court found in the applicant's favour in this regard, granting it the requisite legal standing. It then acceded to the application but did so on the grounds that several of the statutes that constituted the legal basis for Indonesian Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1997 were no longer valid laws themselves.

These materials include (i) a compendium of the Sharia Courts Laws enacted by the sharīʿa states, in the form of the Zamfara State Sharia Courts Law annotated section by section to show variations between it and all the rest; (ii) tables correlating the sections of the Zamfara State Sharia Courts Law with the Area Courts laws of 1967-68, from which the Zamfara law was derived; (iii) other statutory materials; (iv) materials on civil procedure in the Sharia Courts; (v) selected decisions by state High Courts and the federal Court of Appeal on matters related to the Sharia Courts, including their jurisdiction and the law applicable in them; (vi) information on the judges of the Sharia Courts, including their numbers, qualifications, and remuneration; (vii) data on caseloads of courts in the sharīʿa states, including the High Courts and Sharia Courts of Appeal, 2011-2015; and (viii) data on numbers of judgments of amputation and stoning to death imposed by Sharia Courts, 2011-2015, and numbers of appeals from such judgments going to High Courts and Sharia Courts of Appeal.

These materials are a part of The Nigeria Papers – a SHARIAsource Special Collection, compiled and edited by Independent Scholar Philip Ostien and others. 

The purpose of this Supreme Court Circular is to create uniformity in powers of attorney submitted by litigants to judicial bodies. In civil cases, powers of attorney submitted must clearly state, and distinguish between, the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s). Meanwhile, in criminal cases, powers of attorney must state the sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana) pursuant to which the accused is being sued.

In the even a case is escalated to the appeal or cassation level, a new power of attorney is not required.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that divorce applications cannot be invalidated, per arts 142(1) and 147(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for Regions Outside Java and Madrua (Reglemen Acara Hukum Untuk Daerah Luar Jawa dan Madura), where a person with power of attorney for one of the parties does not have power of attorney for the other party.

The prosecution submitted that, on 19 April 2011 at around 9.00pm, the accused was found providing gambling facilities to the public. Specifically, the accused had been faciliting bingo-style (toto gelap) bets to Hong Kong. The prosecution submitted that this type of activity was in contravention of arts 5 and 23(1) of Aceh Qanun No. 13 of 2003 on Gambling.

On the grounds, however, that neither the prosecution nor accused attended court, pursuant to art 191(1) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, the court dismissed the case and ordered that the state pay costs.

In October 2016, Pakistan's Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) passed legislation amending the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), in order to deter and prevent offences in the name or pretext of honour. The amendments introduce limitations on the waiver of qisas (pardon), available to the perpetrators of Qatl-i-amd (intentional homicide), consistent with Islamic criminal law principles. Specifically, the new law introduces Ta’zir—discretionary judicial punishment—for an offender guilty of fasad-fil-arz (spreading mischief on Earth), particularly if the offence is committed in the name or pretext of honor. Under the new law, a court may punish such offender with imprisonment for life after considering “the facts and circumstances of the case.”