scholarly journals Eksistensi AAUPB di Indonesia dan Yurisprudensinya Dalam Perkara TUN

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-317
Author(s):  
Ikhsan Fatah Yasin

This article discusses the General Principles of Good Governance (AAUPB). It has a long journey from the beginning of its coming in the Netherland to its application in Indonesia today. AAUPB, which previously was only in theoretical realm, it changes into Law No. 30 of 2014 today. The principles contained in the law are legal certainty; expediency; impartiality; accuracy; not to abuse authority; openness; public interest; and good service. In addition to these principles, we can also use other principles as far as they become the basis for the judges' judgments that have permanent legal force. In various cases, the basis of the claim of AAUPB does not stand alone but it is also juxtaposed with violations of statutory regulations. The Supreme Court verdict has become a jurisprudence between Suhaili Saun (shareholder in PT Volex Batamindah) and the Chairman of BKPM, although the plaintiff also argued that violating the AAUPB namely the principle of legal certainty, the defendant also violated article 2 letter b of Law No. 1 of 1967 about Foreign Investment. In the case of the dismissal of Bripda Helga Musa Sitepu by the Head of the North Sumatra Regional Police, the decree has violated article 2 paragraph 2 letter d and article 11 paragraph 1 of KAPOLRI regulation No. 8 of 2006 and was contrary to the principle of the district.

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1288
Author(s):  
Arief Hidayat ◽  
Ahmad Redi

The State of Indonesia is a State of Law. But, in fact the ideals of the idea of the State of Law that was built by developing the legal tool itself as a system that is functional and just to achieve community welfare and social justice has not been optimally done. This is reflected in the new Environmental Permit issued by Central Java Governor Ganjar Pranowo (No. 660.1 / 6 of 2017 on Environmental Permit for Mining and Construction Activities of PT Semen Indonesia Plant) is considered to have injured the ideals of the law itself. The new Environmental Permit is contradictory to the content of the Review Judgment issued by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Verdict Decision Number 99 PK / Tun 2016), because in the ruling it ordered that the Governor Replace the old Environmental Permit, which was issued in 2012 and did not issue New Environmental Permit. The verdict contains the basis of judges' consideration in deciding cases that have reflected fairness and legal certainty. The result of the research on the validity of the Environmental Permit Decree on the Review Judgment issued by the Supreme Court concluded that the decree should be invalid because it is not in line with the decision of the court which has permanent legal force.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neni Vesna Madjid ◽  
Saldi Isra ◽  
Kurnia Warman ◽  
Mardenis Mardenis

Testing the provision of Article 155 section (2) Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower has been decided by the Constitutional Court (CC) through decision Number 37/PUU/IX/2011. Prior to the Constitutional Court decision, there are many various interpretations of undetermined clause. The Constitutional Court firmly states that the undetermined clause must be interpreted as “having a permanent legal force ".This study aims to analyze how the judges dismissed dispute of work termination cases in Indonesia after the decision. The research applied juridical normative method  by using secondary data literature such as legal documents, previous studies and other references which are relevant to the judges' decision within the Supreme Court after the Constitutional Court decision. Based on the analysis temporary result, the judges within the Supreme Court in 3 regions (Padang, Pekanbaru and Jakarta Pusat) and the Supreme Court itself are not practically guided by the Constitutional Court decision. It obviously results in the lack of legal certainty for the parties, especially workers.Keyword: Constitutional Court, Industrial Relation Court, Interpretation, Supreme Court.


2010 ◽  
pp. 85-89
Author(s):  
Manas Ranjan Samantaray ◽  
Mritunjay Sharma

Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system in that it could achieve those objectives which could hardly be achieved through conventional private litigation.PIL, for instance, offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, provides an avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to not only spread awareness about human rights but also allows them to participate in government decision making. PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government accountable. This article will show, with reference to the Indian experience, that PIL could achieve these important objectives. However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to fulfil private interests, settle political scores or gain easy publicity. Judiciary in a democracy should also not use PIL as a device to run the country on a day-today basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive and legislature. The challenge for states, therefore, is to strike a balance in allowing legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous ones. One way to achieve this balance could be to build in economic (dis)incentives in PIL and also confine it primarily to those cases where access to justice is undermined by some kind of disability. Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one has to move the Supreme Court or the High Court’s directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however, makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. The Supreme Court of India pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing upon the portals of courts to the common man. Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or the aggrieved party. However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Nurnazli ,

This article tries to elucidate the attempt of The Supreme Court of Indonesia to formulate regulation on the distribution of joint property on the basis of juridical, philosophical, and sociological considerations. How does the Supreme Court realize the legal transformation of the distribution of joint property in Indonesia through the Supreme Court's decisions? Based on the documented data analysis, this paper conclude that the Supreme Court's decisions only have a legal certainty on joint property for the disputing parties. It has a complementary element to the existing law. It will have a legal force by the promulgation through the legislative institution. Therefore, the Supreme Court's ecision can be used as one of the instruments of the renewal of family law in Indonesia.Putusan Mahkamah Agung tentang pembagian harta bersama tidak selalu mengikuti rumusan peraturan perundang-undangan. Teks undang-undang sebagai hukum yang abstrak terkadang tidak dapat diterapkan pada konteks atau kasus tertentu, sehingga hakim melakukan penemuan hukum dengan mempertimbangkan aspek yuridis, filosofis, dan sosiologis. Berdasarkan hal ini maka problem dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimanakah mewujudkan transformasi hukum pembagian harta bersama di Indonesia melalui Putusan Mahkamah Agung? Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa Putusan Mahkamah Agung hanya memiliki kekuatan mengikat dan kepastian hukum bagi pihak-pihak yang bersengketa. Putusan Mahkamah Agung pada hakikatnya hanya menyempurnakan Undang-Undang, karena Mahkamah Agung tidak memiliki kewenangan membuat undang-undang. Agar putusan tersebut memiliki kekuatan mengikat  maka harus diundangkan melalui lembaga legislatif. Jadi Putusan Mahkamah Agung yang mengandung unsur kebaruan yang menyesuaikan dengan situasi dan kondisi kekinian, dapat dijadikan sebagai salah satu instrumen pembaruan hukum keluarga di Indonesia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
Subrata Biswas

What do the different State organs do when they face a crisis? Do the suffering institutions successfully re-invent themselves or is it that some other institution uses the crisis to find an ‘opportunity’ to re-invent itself? Can one’s crisis be another’s opportunity? This case-study analyses how the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter SCI) reinvented itself in a bid to further the cause of good governance in the country ever since emergency had been clamped on the nation towards the end of 1970s. Surely there has been a crisis of governance in India, caused by the pathetic performance of both the legislature and the executive. It has led to myriad problems in both social and political arenas. If left unaddressed, Indian people might have turned more violent than they already are and that could have perpetrated a failure of democracy in the country. But the SCI has successfully played a positive role in this regard. If the other institutions have failed the people, the Supreme Court has championed their cause. The world’s largest democracy stands saved until now. But is it wholly the judges’ heartfelt concern for the people that has prompted the Supreme Court to function in this fashion? Did anything go wrong during the emergency? Why is it that it has been more and more active ever since the emergency ended? And why is it that there has been an exponential growth in public interest litigations (hereinafter PILs) in the Supreme Court even though it cannot handle so many cases because of infrastructural paucities? Situating itself in the specific context of PILs entertained by the SCI and supporting it with the theoretical inputs of the so-called ‘principal-agent framework’, this essay argues that there has been a competition (i.e., between the court and the elected politicians) for ‘occupying’ more space in the domain of governance since the inception of the Constitution and it is only the Supreme Court that got the right ‘opportunity’ to achieve its objective in the wake of crisis in governance that became so visible in Indian politics ever since the fag-end of the 1970s. While the court tried other instruments earlier in its game plan vis-a-vis the elected politicians, the crisis situation since the end of the 1970s made it ‘invent’ a new tool in the form of PILs capable of safeguarding the interests of the people and insulating them against the mindless functioning of multiple state agencies. But how far can the SCI (hereinafter SCI) proceed with this new tool? Is there a risk of ‘overusing’ it? Does the court not have its own limitations in this regard, too? What should the Supreme Court do in order to avert a fresh ‘crisis’?


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Binov Handitya

This paper discusses the application of The Principles Of Good Government, or what we often know with the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB) in the implementation of government policies, needs to be improved. As a form of filter that is able to filter out any government administration so that it can be free from the snare of corruption. Public officials or implementers must be emphasized in understanding in depth the principles contained in the AUPB to be applied in providing services to the public / community. There are at least 8 (eight) principles attached to the AUPB based on the Government Administration Law, among others: the principle of legal certainty, the principle of expediency, the principle of impartiality, the principle of accuracy, the principle of not abusing authority, the principle of openness, the principle of public interest and the principle of good service.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-125
Author(s):  
Aris Irawan

This research aimed at analyzing the characteristics of resolution of forest area disputes based on the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 269K / TUN / 2018. This research used normative legal method with legal, case, and conceptual approaches. The results showed that the Decidendi Ratio of the Supreme Court’s Decision was inappropriate. It is because in the context of the principle of legal certainty, that the object of the dispute is not included in the PTUN Decree, because of the Decree of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning / Head of the National Land Agency Number 1 / Pbt / KEM-ATR / BPN / 2016, is an integral part of the execution of criminal law against the act of falsifying documents carried out by officials within the North Kalimantan National Land Agency (formerly East Kalimantan), in issuing the PT Nunukan Jaya Lestari HGU certificate. The Supreme Court’s consideration regarding the overlapping area between PT Adindo Hutani Lestari and PT Nunukan Jaya Lestari, covering ±3,500 Ha is also incorrect because it must be understood that the area claimed to be overlapping is a dispute of the forest area.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 160
Author(s):  
Rachel Yohana

Arbitration by its advantages is often chosen by businessmen to resolve cases, however at the same time there are some weaknesses that actually do not make it as an efficient choice in resolving cases. Especially when the opposite parties are not cooperative and not upholding the spirit of arbitration. The refusal and annulment of foreign arbitral awards, for instance, has made a settlement process seems has no end and no legal certainty to enforcet its awards. In the case of PERTAMINA VS. Karaha Bodas Company, PERTAMINA made a claim of annulment of the arbitration award in Geneva, Switzerland on December 18th, 2000 at The Central Jakarta District Court. This claim was then accepted and the panel of judges decided to annul the a-quo arbitration award, its legal proceedings continued until the process by The Indonesias Supreme Court. A wrong court award in responding to foreign arbitration awards may affect the consideration of foreign investment in a country, a bad precedent can damage the consideration of foreign investment. The findings of this study indicate PERTAMINA is not cooperative and does not support legal certainty for the implementation of foreign arbitral awards. Whereas the Awards of the Panel of Judges of the Central Jakarta District Court set a bad precedent and gave a negative impression on the consideration of arbitration and foreign investment in Indonesia. The Supreme Court Judge Panel in its award stated that it was not authorized by the Central Jakarta District Court to annul the a quo arbitration award is being a good precedent, indicating legal certainty in the implementation of foreign arbitration decisions and foreign investment in Indonesia.Arbitrase dengan berbagai kelebihannya kerap dipilih pelaku bisnis untuk menyelesaikan perkara yang timbul, namun bersamaan dengan itu beberapa kelemahan yang ada justru tidak menjadikannya sebagai pilihan yang efisien dalam menyelesaikan perkara. Terlebih ketika berhadapan dengan pihak yang tidak kooperatif, serta tidak menjunjung semangat berarbitrase. Upaya penolakan dan pembatalan putusan misalnya, menjadikan proses perkara seolah tidak ada habis-habisnya dan tidak ada kepastian hukum untuk melaksanakan putusan. Dalam perkara PERTAMINA VS. Karaha Bodas Company, PERTAMINA melakukan gugatan pembatalan putusan arbitrase Jenewa, Swiss tanggal 18 Desember 2000 ke Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, gugatan ini kemudian diterima dan majelis hakim memutuskan batal putusan arbitrase a quo, upaya hukum berlanjut hingga proses peninjauan kembali. Putusan pengadilan yang keliru dalam menanggapi putusan arbitrase asing dapat berpengaruh pada pertimbangan penanaman modal asing di suatu negara, preseden buruk menjadikan negara seolah tidak ramah pada putusan arbitrase asing. Temuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan PERTAMINA tidak kooperatif dan tidak mendukung kepastian hukum bagi pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase asing. Sedangkan Putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat menjadi preseden yang buruk dan menimbulkan kesan negatif terhadap pandangan berarbitrase dan penanaman modal asing di Indonesia. Majelis Hakim Mahkamah Agung dalam putusan peninjauan kembali yang tetap pada sikapnya menyatakan tidak berwenang Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat membatalkan putusan arbitrase a quo menjadi preseden yang baik, menunjukkan adanya kepastian hukum dalam pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase asing dan penanaman modal asing di Indonesia.


Author(s):  
Rusli Halil Nasution ◽  
Asmuni Asmuni ◽  
Pagar Hsb

The aims of the study are to find out the process of implementing divorce case in North Sumatera. This study is a qualitative and normative study of PERMA Number 1 of 2016 with its application in the North Sumatra Religious Court as a legal product in the present aspects that applies in testing the success of the regulation being implemented in the North Sumatra Court, especially in (three) 3 big cities namely the Court Medan, Binjai and Tebing Tinggi religion. The result shows that The implementation of peace in divorce cases in the North Sumatra Religious Court is not significant. In the implementation of divorce case mediation in the North Sumatra Religious Court, many factors influence, among others, technical and non-technical factors. The technical factor is the limitations of the Mediator, namely the absence of a list of non-Judge Mediators here will further aggravate the work of the Judge because of his work being double that is as a Panel Judge and Mediator Judge. So that the work of the Judge mediator is very ineffective and so is the non-judge mediator who must have an official certificate from the Supreme Court so that the training costs are large and the costs of the mediator are not protected by the Regulation 


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document