scholarly journals Pengaturan Penyelesaian Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara Secara Elektronik

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 1399
Author(s):  
Guntur Aris Prabowo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe title of this research is “Elektonic State Administration Dispute Settlement Arrangements” provides an explanation of the legal issues discussed by the author about 1) Comparison of procedural law ini State Administrative Courts which is carried out coventionally and electronically; and 2) Constraints to the application of Electronic Court in the State Administrative Court. Rapid technological advances make it easy for humans in all area, one of which is in the law. Legal breakthroughs carried out by the Supreme Court can be seen in the existence of Electronic Court. The State Administrative Court, which is an institution under the Supreme Court, implements electronic court. The State Administrative Court has a function to protect the public against government actions and policies.Keywords: The State Administrative Court; Electronic Court; Conventional Court.AbstrakPenelitian ini yang berjudul “Pengaturan Penyelesaian Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara Secara Elektronik” memberikan penjelasan pada rumusan masalah yang dibahas oleh penulis tentang 1) Perbandingan hukum acara di Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara yang dilakukan secara konvensional dengan elektronik; dan 2) Kendala penerapan Peradilan Elektronik di Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Kemajuan teknologi yang sangat pesat memberikan kemudahan bagi manusia di segala bidang, salah satunya adalah di bidang hukum. Terobosan hukum yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Agung dapat dilihat dengan adanya Peradilan Elektronik. Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara yang merupakan lembaga yang berada di bawah Mahkamah Agung menerapkan peradilan elektronik. Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara memiliki fungsi untuk melindungi masyarakat terhadap tindakan dan kebijakan pemerintah.Kata Kunci: Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara; Peradilan Elektronik; Peradilan Konvensional.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

scholarly journals ANALISIS KEABSAHAN KEPUTUSAN GUBERNUR JAWA TENGAH NOMOR 660.1/6 TAHUN 2017 TENTANG IZIN LINGKUNGAN KEGIATAN PENAMBANGAN DAN PEMBANGUNAN PABRIK PT SEMEN INDONESIA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 32 TAHUN 2009 TENTANG PERLINDUNGAN DAN PENGELOLAAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1288
Author(s):  
Arief Hidayat ◽  
Ahmad Redi
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Central Java ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Force

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.

Ustalenie właściwości organu administracji publicznej w zakresie prowadzenia egzekucji obowiązkowych szczepień ochronnych i występowania z wnioskiem o ukaranie za uchylanie się od tego obowiązku

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (70) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Sebastian Czechowicz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Preventive Vaccination ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Legislative Changes

The article is devoted to determine the authority competent to carry out the execution of the obligation to vaccinate, as well as the authority competent to apply for punishment of those who persistently evade preventive vaccinations on the basis of the Code of Misdemeanours in Poland. After analysing the competencies of the public administration bodies and comparing them with the judicial decisions of the administrative courts and the Supreme Court issued in cases involving mandatory preventive vaccination, which present an inconsistent line of jurisprudence, the author concludes that the enforcement body is the province governor. However, it is necessary to postulate legislative changes, primarily in the area of the possible transfer of competencies from the province governor to the State Sanitary Inspection.

scholarly journals We Can Thank Harvey Weinstein for Doing What Congress and the Supreme Court Failed to Do

2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Sherwyn ◽  
Paul Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Popular Press ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

While the years 2017 and 2018 will be remembered for numerous geo political and social movements, any retrospective of this time will include the issue of sexual harassment and the corresponding “Me Too” movement. In this time, sexual harassment has transformed from a workplace legal concept to an issue that is defining the fabric of the country. While no one could persuasively argue that sexual harassment has not expanded from its legal roots to a movement that transcends the law, the fact is that the concept is rooted and adjudicated in law. Sadly, the commentators and the popular press often ignore or misstate the law. This creates a dangerous culture where the public is misinformed of their rights and responsibilities. More troubling, is the fact that there are serious problems with the law that need to be understand and, we contend, changed, in order for the entire problem to be eliminated, or, at least, mitigated. This paper explains the law with regard to what constitutes sexual harassment and when the employer is liable, identifies the problems, and proposes a fix so that we can create a future workplace where the authors’ five daughters (between them) and the rest of their generation will be able to honestly not raise their hands and not have to say: “Me Too!”

scholarly journals Legal Aid by the State as a Constitutional Right of the Poor: Problems and Challenges in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-196
Author(s):  
Ari Wibowo ◽  
Michael Hagana Bangun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The provision of legal aid is one way to realize access to law and justice for the poor people provided by the state on the mandate of the constitution. Several regulations regarding legal aid have been issued by the state through the Act and its implementing regulations as well as from the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court through the Supreme Court Regulations and the Constitutional Court's decisions. Legal aid is the constitutional right of every citizen to guarantee legal protection and guarantee equality before the law stipulated in Law Number 16 of 2011, the State is responsible for recognizing and protecting the human rights of every individual without differing backgrounds so that everyone has the right to be treated equally before the law is contained in Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. For the poor who experience legal problems in the form of injustice, they can request legal assistance from legal aid institutions that are regulated in legislation. The purpose of providing legal aid is to guarantee and fulfill the right for Legal Aid Recipients to gain access to justice, to realize the constitutional rights of all citizens in accordance with the principle of equality in law, to ensure the certainty that the implementation of Legal Aid is carried out equally across the territory of the Republic of Indonesia. , and to create an effective, efficient and accountable court.

scholarly journals Penerapan Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem Pada Perkara Judicial review Di Mahkamah Agung

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Abstract.Article 13 paragraph 1 of Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power states that all court hearings are open to the public, unless the Act says otherwise. Therefore, a judicial review trial must be open to the public. If the trial process of the judicial review is carried out in a closed manner, it can be considered a legal defect, because it is contrary to Article 13 paragraph (3) of the Law. The Law of the Supreme Court is not regulated that the judicial review is closed, because in the judicial review there is a need for openness or principle of audiences of parties or litigants must be given the opportunity to provide information and express their opinions, including the defendant as the maker of Legislation invitation under the law, so that the impact of the decision will need to be involved.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi Alteram Et Partem Principle, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court Abstrak.Pasal 13 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyebutkan semua sidang pemeriksaan pengadilan terbuka untuk umum, kecuali Undang-Undang berkata lain. Oleh karena itu,  judicial review persidangan harus dilakukan terbuka untuk umum. Apabila proses persidangan judicial review ini dilakukan secara tertutup, maka dapat dinilai cacat hukum karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 13 ayat (3) Undang-Undang tersebut. Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung pun tidak diatur bahwa persidangan judicial review bersifat tertutup, karena dalam judicial review perlu adanya keterbukaan atau asas audi alteram et partem atau pihak-pihak yang berperkara harus diberi kesempatan untuk memberikan keterangan dan menyampaikan pendapatnya termasuk pihak termohon sebagai  pembuat Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di bawah Undang-Undang sehingga akan terkena dampak putusan perlu dilibatkan.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi.

scholarly journals Expansion of the Objects of State Administrative Disputes after the Enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 Concerning Government Administration and Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 Concerning Guidelines for the Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies or Officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad / OOD)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 383
Author(s):  
Sonyendah Retnaningsih ◽  
Disriani Latifah Soroinda Nasution ◽  
Heryna Oktaviani ◽  
Muhammad Rizqi Alfarizi Ramadhan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Government Action ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

Historically, State Administrative Court (PTUN) has existed since 1986, with the enactment of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court which currently has been amended by Law Number 9 of 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court and amended again by Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. The role of the Administrative Court according to the explanation of the law, the PTUN functions as a control or supervisory agency thus legal actions from government officials do not deviate, in addition to protecting the rights of citizens from the actions of officials who abuse their authority or act arbitrarily. Currently, the object of dispute and can be sued at the State Administrative Court is only a State Administration decision reduced by the exceptions stipulated in Article 2 and Article 49 of the PTUN Law. The provisions of Article 3 of the Administrative Court Law No. 5 of 1986 on negative fictitious could potentially no longer be enforced since the enactment of Article 53 of the AP Law which stipulates positive fictitious. Since the promulgation of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (hereinafter referred to as AP Law) on 17 October 2014, there has been a change in the legal criteria from the government written stipulation (beschikkingen) which was initially restrictive and can be sued to the PTUN, yet it has recently become extensive (which was originally mere beschkking, currently it almost covers all variations of besluiten). With the enactment of the AP Law, there will be an expansion of absolute competence and objects of state administration disputes, as stipulated in Article 87 of the AP Law which includes: first, Government Administration Decrees, as stipulated in Article 1 point 7 of the AP Law; second, Government Administration Actions Based on Article 1 point 8 of the AP Law. Furthermore, with the enactment of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and the Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD), the judicial power shall transfer from the General Court to the State Administrative Court. This crucial matter continues to be the groundwork and reason for conducting the current research entitled the expansion of the state administration dispute object after the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and the supreme court regulation (Perma) Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by the Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD). Conducted through normative juridical research method, this research-based paper examined the interviews through judges at PTUN Jakarta and Bandung and the main data source within this qualitative analysis serves as the secondary data or literature data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document