Explore the vast range of titles available.

The omnibus concept is intended to offer a solution to problems caused by too many regulations (over regulation) and frequent overlapping between regulations (overlapping). Both of these problems are not easy to solve in the usual way, because it will take a long time and a lot of money. In order to overcome these problems, the omnibus method is considered one of the responsive and progressive methods in solving the problems of over regulation and overlapping in Indonesia. The implementation of this research applies normative legal methods. There are several factors that cause too many regulations to be born in our country. First, many people think that every legal problem can be resolved by forming a regulation. Second, every examiner in carrying out their duties and functions always questions the existence or absence of regulations that serve as a legal umbrella or as a basis. Third, in determining the budget, the Ministry of Finance also often passes or does not pass the budget of ministries/institutions based on the existence or absence of regulations as a legal umbrella. The nature and urgency of the omnibus method regulation in Law 13 of 2022 concerning the Second Amendment to Law 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Legislation (PPP Law), when viewed with Aristotle's approach that the essence of law exists because of causality, the omnibus method regulation in the PPP Law is more inclined to be caused by the existence of a goal (causa finalis).

Philosophically, theoretically, historically, legally, and sociologically, the presence of advocates is greatly needed as a balance in the justice system, but some of them commit corruption. The problem is, their punishment causes disparity, due to the existence of vague legal norms and the absence of legal norms. Therefore, the research focuses on, first, the ratio decidendi of punishment for advocates who commit corruption which causes disparity in punishment. Second, the renewal of the concept of punishment for advocates who commit corruption based on legal certainty. This legal research uses a statutory, conceptual, philosophical, and case approach by collecting and processing primary and secondary legal materials as well as non-legal materials that are analyzed prescriptively. The results are, first, the ratio decidendi related to punishment for advocates who commit corruption results in different prison sentences even though there are similarities related to proven crimes, thus proving the occurrence of disparity in punishment which is quite disruptive to the realization of the principle of legal certainty. Theoretically, the discourse on disparity in sentencing in criminal law is not intended to eliminate differences in the magnitude of punishments for perpetrators of crimes, but to reduce the range of differences in sentencing. Second, guidelines for sentencing in corruption cases committed by advocates, for example, bribery or obstruction of investigation, are considered necessary and realistic. Theoretically, guidelines for sentencing advocates who commit corruption do not set aside the independence, independence, or freedom of judges, but are an instrument of control over the performance of judges so that their decisions do not cause disparities in sentencing that are quite disturbing and set aside the realization of legal certainty.

This research is a normative legal research. Expert witnesses are needed in the trial process to provide clarity regarding the evidence presented in the trial process. For this reason, every person who will provide testimony as an expert witness in a trial must have a certificate of expertise as an expert witness, which is given by the Supreme Court or an official institution that obtains permission from the Supreme Court. The goal is that the information given at the trial can be justified legally and morally. Mistakes in providing information in court can be detrimental to the parties in litigation.