scholarly journals Analysis of Lawsuit Against the Factual Action which Conducted by Military after Law Number 30 Year 2014 Concerning Government Administration

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Wahyu Purnomo ◽  
Rr. Herini Siti Aisyah ◽  
Thoriq Mulahela ◽  
Xavier Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
District Court ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
State Administration ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Military

The enactment of law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration has caused a paradigm shift under development of state administration decision (in short term known as KTUN). By virtue of article 87 of Law number 30 year 2014, KTUN was not only on the written form, but it can also be a factual act. This causes a change in the absolute competence of lawsuit on factual actions taken by the government from the district administrative court (PTUN). It is arises a question whether Article 87 of Law number 30 year 2014 also applies to claims for factual actions committed by the military. The formulation of problems in this research are 1) The position of a lawsuit against factual actions committed by the military before Law number 30 year 2014 and 2) the claim position against factual actions committed by the military after Law Number 30 Year 2014. This research is a doctrinal research by using a statute approach and conceptual approach. The result of the analysis found that the KTUN paradigm have change under Law number 30 year 2014, which does not affect the absolute competence of lawsuits for factual actions carried out by military, though a government were excluded as mentioned on Article 2 of Law Number 9 of 2004 on Amendments of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. It was confirmed under Article 87 of Law 30/2014, which grammatically states that the only changes to the KTUN are those in Law 51/2009, Law 10/2004, and Law 5/1986. The application of lex specialist pictured under the act number 30 year 2014 which regulated the administrative decision by the government, however concerning the military only regulated under the act number 31 year 1997. Further, the absolute competence on handling the legal factual action by the military since the implementation of law number 30 year 2014 is still held in the district court.

scholarly journals Perkembangan Gugatan Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum oleh Pemerintah Pasca-Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 (Development of Lawsuit for Law Violation by the Government Post Statute/Law Number 30 of 2014)

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bagus Oktafian Abrianto ◽  
Xavier Nugraha ◽  
Nathanael Grady
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
The State ◽  
District Court ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Past ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Good Will ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Government

The existence of a lawsuit for unlawful acts by the authorities (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad) is one of the means of providing legal protection for the citizens from actions (handling) carried out by the government. Over time, the concept of onrechtmatige overheidsdaad has develops dynamically. The change in the concept of the State Administrative Decree in Article 87 of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration has caused an onrechtmatige overheidsdaad lawsuit which was once the absolute competence of the District Court, and now became the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court. This research attempts to explain the changes in the regulation and changes in the concept of onrechtmatige overheidsdaad after the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014. The transfer of authority to examine onrechtmatige overheidsdaad lawsuit from the general court to the state administrative court has various juridical consequences, ranging from changes in procedural law, petitum and posita. One of the important consequences is a change related to the implementation or execution of the judicial decision, where in the past, when an onrechtmatige overheidsdaad lawsuit was an absolute competence of a district court, the implementation of the decision depended on the good will of the government. However, after becoming absolute competence of the Administrative Court, there is a mechanism of forced efforts so that the decision can be carried out by the relevant government agencies (defendants).AbstrakKeberadaan gugatan perbuatan melanggar hukum oleh penguasa (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad) merupakan salah satu sarana pelindungan hukum masyarakat atas tindakan (handeling) yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah. Adapun konsep mengenai onrechtmatige overheidsdaad berkembang secara dinamis dari waktu ke waktu. Perubahan konsep Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara (KTUN) di dalam Pasal 87 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan, menyebabkan gugatan onrechtmatige overheidsdaad yang dahulu merupakan kompetensi absolut Pengadilan Negeri, berubah menjadi kompetensi absolut Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Penelitian ini berusaha memaparkan mengenai perubahan pengaturan dan perubahan konsep onrechtmatige overheidsdaad pasca berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014. Beralihnya kewenangan untuk memeriksa gugatan onrechtmatige overheidsdaad dari lingkungan peradilan umum ke peradilan tata usaha negara memiliki berbagai konsekuensi yuridis, mulai dari perubahan hukum acara, petitum, dan posita. Salah satu konsekuensi yang cukup penting adalah perubahan terkait dengan pelaksanaan putusan atau eksekusi. Dahulu, gugatan onrechtmatige overheidsdaad merupakan kompetensi absolut pengadilan negeri, sehingga pelaksanaan putusan tergantung dari itikad baik (good will) dari pemerintah. Pasca-beralih ke kompetensi absolut PTUN, terdapat mekanisme upaya paksa agar putusan tersebut dapat dijalankan oleh instransi pemerintah terkait (tergugat).

scholarly journals New Paradigm Of Abuse Of Power On Discretion After Government Administration Act

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hidayat Pratama Putra
Keyword(s):  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
The State ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Legal Provision ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Government

Discretion is one of government actions that are very vulnerable to abuse of power in it. Law Number 30 Year 2014 on Government Administration as a legal provision in the field of state administration currently regulates in detail related to discretion, abuse of power, and abuse of power in discretion in particular. This paper discusses the regulation related to abuse of power that has a paradigm shift based on Law Number 30 Year 2014 on Government Administration and benchmark it in discretion. The Government Administration Act builds a new paradigm of abuse of power by interpreting broadly abuse of power comprising beyond authority, misuse of authority and arbitrary. There are several indicators to show that discretion can be considered as abuse of power, namely: • Contrary to the Act and/or the principle of good governance; Notwithstanding the purpose of discretion or the purpose of the state in general; Breaking discretionary procedures; Beyond the Authority (onbevoegdheid); And/or has no basis of authority.

scholarly journals Misconception on the Authority Abuse of Power in the Law Enforcement against Corruption

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Sadjijono Sadjijono ◽  
Bagus Teguh Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction

Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration brings the strength and the averment on the performance of the governmental functions which include executive, legislative, and juridical in order to provide the public services (bestuurzorg). Such regulation also aims to prevent and to eliminate any kinds of the maladministration done by the government officials/organs in implementing their functions so that good governance can be realized. In implementing their function, the government should rely on the useful performance (doelmatigheid) and the effectiveness (doeltreffenhgeid) according to the norms of each authority. It is a sophism when the ‘authority’ and/or the ‘competence’ mentioned under the Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration are defined differently in the letterlijk gramatikal wet without associating those terms with an understanding of bevoegheid in an administrative legal concept. An idea that distinctively defines the term ‘competence’ as a right and ‘authority’ as a power is considered as an inconsistent idea, which may cause dualism and distortion in the common law enforcement reffering to the administrative law, particularly related to the concept of the authority abuse of power mentioned under the Law No. 31/ 1999 amended by the Law No. 20/ 2001 on deeds against corruption. As the result, when the notion of ‘authority abuse of power’ is defined as a right (as mentioned in article 1, subsection 5 jo. article 17, Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration), it will be characterized into the absolute competence of the administrative jurisdiction, and when the notion of ‘authority abuse of power’ is defined as a power (as mentioned in article 3, Law No. 31/ 1999 on deeds against corruption), it will be characterized into the absolute competence of the corruption-act jurisdiction. Meanwhile, implementing the government’s ‘competence’ and/or ‘authority’ is characterized into one concept based on the norms of the authority power.

scholarly journals Pengaturan Mengenai Pendaftaran Pendirian Firma Pada Sistem Administrasi Badan Usaha

Acta Comitas ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 475
Author(s):  
I Made Hengki Permadi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
District Court ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Government Regulations ◽  
Administration System ◽  
Military Alliance ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
The Military ◽  
Legal Consequences

The process or procedure for establishing a firm is regulated in Article 22 and Article 23 of the Commercial Law Code (hereinafter referred to as KUHD). In this provision, it is stipulated that the firm must be established with an authentic deed and registered with the Registrar of the District Court where the firm was established. The regulations in the KUHD are not in line with the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 17 Year 2018 regarding the Registration of the Military Alliance, the Fima Alliance and the Civil Alliance which indicates that the registration of the firm is carried out in the Legal Entity Administration System (hereinafter referred to as SABU). it appears that there is a norm conflict between the two rules. This study aims to determine the arrangements in registering the Firm and the legal consequences of not registering the Firm in the Business Entity Administration System (SABU). This research is a normative legal research. In research using a statutory and conceptual approach. Using primary and secondary legal materials. The results showed that based on the principle of Lex Superiori derogate Legi Inferiori, based on the hierarchy of statutory regulations, the KUHD which is equivalent to the Law is stronger than the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number 17 of 2018 concerning Registration of Komanditer Alliance, Firm Alliance and Civil Alliance whose position is under Government Regulations and Presidential Regulations, because the Acts are higher than Government Regulations and Presidential Regulations. The legal consequence of not registering a firm with SABU is that the name of the firm can be used first by other firms so it must change the name of the firm concerned with another name because in the SABU system there is a registration of the firm's alliance name. If there is a partnership with another firm that registers the name of the firm first, then the name of the same firm cannot be registered again and the firm is deemed invalid. Proses atau tata cara pendirian firma diatur dalam Pasal 22 dan Pasal 23 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang (yang selanjutnya disebut KUHD). Dalam ketentuan tersebuti menentukan bahwa firma harus didirikan dengan akta otentik dan didaftarkan pada Kepaniteraan Pengadilan Negeri dimana firma tersebut didirikan. Peraturan dalam KUHD tersebut tidak sejalan dengan Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Nomor 17 Tahun 2018 tentang Pendaftaran Persekutuan Komanditer, Persekutuan Fima dan Persekutuan Perdata yang mengisyaratkan bahwa pendaftaran firma dilakukan pada Sistem Administrasi Badan Hukum (yang selanjutnya disebut SABU). terlihat bahwa adanya konflik norma diantara kedua aturan itu. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui   pengaturan dalam pendaftaran Firma  dan akibat hukum apabila tidak mendaftarkan Firma pada Sistem Administrasi Badan Usaha (SABU). Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif. Dalam penelitian menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual. Menggunakan bahan hukum primer dan sekunder.   Hasil penelitian  menunjukkan  bahwa  berdasarkan asas Lex Superiori derogate Legi Inferiori maka berdasarkan hirarki peraturan perundang-undangan, KUHD yang setara dengan Undang-Undang lebih kuat dibanding Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Nomor 17 Tahun 2018 tentang Pendaftaran Persekutuan Komanditer, Persekutuan Firma dan Persekutuan Perdata yang kedudukannya dibawah Peraturan Pemerintah dan Peraturan Presiden, karena Undang-Undang kedudukannya lebih tinggi dari Peraturan Pemerintah dan Peraturan Presiden. Akibat hukum dari tidak didaftarkannya firma pada SABU, yaitu nama firma dapat dipakai terlebih dahulu oleh firma lainnya sehingga harus mengganti nama firma yang bersangkutan dengan nama yang lain karena di dalam sistem SABU terdapat pendaftaran nama persekutuan firma. Jika ada persekutuan firma lain yang mendaftarkan nama firmanya terlebih dahulu maka nama firma yang sama tidak akan bisa didaftarkan kembali dan firma tersebut dianggap tidak sah pendiriannya.

scholarly journals Keputusan Fiktif Sebagai Dasar Pengajuan Gugatan Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-72
Author(s):  
I Gede Buonsu ◽  
A. A. Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽  
Luh Putu Suryani
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Government ◽  
Definition Of

Based on the definition of a state administrative dispute, it can be seen that a State Administrative Dispute has an object in the form of a State Administrative Court, which has been regulated in Article 1 paragraph (9) of Law Number 51 of 2009. State Administrative Court itself can be divided into two, namely negative and positive fictional KTUN regulated in article 3 of the Administrative Court Law and article 53 of the Government Administration Law. This study aims to analyze the arrangement of fictitious TUN decisions according to positive law in Indonesia and to find out the fictional TUN decisions as objects of state administration disputes. This research uses descriptive normative research methods with legal, conceptual and case approaches. The results showed that the decision of fictitious TUN can be divided into two, namely negative fictitious TUN and positive fictitious TUN in which the two rules indirectly cause conflict because they both regulate fictitious TUN but have different meanings, where based on Article 3 is interpreted as a decision rejection (negative fictitious KTUN) while according to the provisions of Article 53 it is interpreted as a decision to grant (positive fictitious KTUN).

scholarly journals REFORMULASI DISKRESI DALAM PENATAAN HUKUM ADMINISTRASI

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Arfan Faiz Muhlizi
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Principle Of Legality

<p>Instrumen hukum paling klasik untuk melaksanakan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan guna mewujudkan masyarakat yang adil dan makmur adalah Hukum Administrasi Negara (HAN). Untuk mencapai tujuan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan tersebut, birokrasi menjadi alat yang efektif didalam menjalankan pengelolaan negara. Persoalan hukum dari birokrasi yang menjadi permasalahan saat ini adalah persinggungan asas legalitas ( wetmatigheid ) dan diskresi ( pouvoir discretionnaire ) pejabat negara (eksekutif). Tulisan ini berusaha menjawab permasalahan di atas dengan lebih menitikberatkan bahasan mengenai “diskresi” dalam hukum administrasi. Dengan metode yuridis normative, penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa diskresi memang diperlukan dalam hukum administrasi, khususnya di dalam menyelesaikan persoalan dimana peraturan perundang-undangan belum mengaturnya atau hanya mengatur secara umum. Disamping itu diskresi juga diperlukan dalam hal terdapat prosedur yang tidak dapat diselesaikan menurut administrasi yang normal. Dengan demikian penataan Hukum Administrasi menjadi sangat penting dan tentunya bukan sekedar melihat dari sisi pembentukan atau penataan peraturan perundang-undangan terkait administrasi negara, tetapi lebih jauh dari itu adalah penataan tatanan hukum yang terdiri dari struktur, substansi, dan kultur masyarakat, birokrasi, dan penegak hukum.</p><p>The most classical legal instruments to carry out government administration in order to realize a just and prosperous society is the Law of State Administration (HAN). To achieve the objectives of the government, the bureaucracy into an effective tool in the management of state run. Legal issues of bureaucracy which is the case today is the intersection of the principle of legality (wetmatigheid) and discretionary (pouvoir discretionnaire) state officials (executive). This article tries to answer the above problems with a more focused discussion on the “discretion” in administrative law. With normative juridical methods, the study concluded that discretion was necessary in administrative law, especially in solving problems in which the legislation has not been set or simply set in general. Besides, discretion is also required in case there are procedures that cannot be resolved according to the normal administration. Thus the arrangement of Administrative Law to be very important and certainly not just a look from the side of the formation or arrangement of the legislation related to state administration, but further than that is the arrangement of the legal order which consists of the structure, substance, and the culture of the society, bureaucracy, and enforcement the law.</p>

scholarly journals The Competence of the Administrative Court and Administrative Justice

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Aju - Putrijanti
Keyword(s):  
Legal Certainty ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Quality Of Governance ◽  
The Government ◽  
Clear Information ◽  
Administrative Justice

Administrative Court is a specialized court under the Supreme Court with a role to settle the administrative disputes included staffing disputes. The legitimation of Law No. 30 of 2104 concerning Government Administration has brought a new paradigm in the governance framework. Also, the competence of the Court is broader than before. In Addition, some regulations give more competence to the Court. It is normative juridical research. It uses statute, conceptual approach to observed, analyzed and discussion on the issues. This research is to develop the relations between the competence of the Court and administrative justice. Based on the research, broader competence gives more opportunity to get access to justice.In conclusion, administrative justice has some meanings; first, it is the rights of an individual. Therefore, the government has to provide detail, clear information for any individual before issuing a decree based on the application, rights to claims and revision for any mistakes. Second,  the defendant must obey and implement the judicial verdict. This obligation as an implementation of administrative justice and legal certainty for Plaintiff and obedience by the Defendant to the judge verdict. Third, administrative justice should be supported by the regulations by obeying the judge verdict. This is part of improving the quality of governance.

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.

scholarly journals The Meaning of the Expansion of Administrative Court that Covers Factual Actions

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-192
Author(s):  
Fellista Ersyta Aji
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
Research Material ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Justice

The Administrative Court and Law No. 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Justice have been provided facilities for the public to sue the government and ask to cancel the decision made by the government. Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration has been stipulated that Government Administration Act more or less supersedes the provisions contained in the Law of the State administrative justice. Especially in this Law which attracts attention is the expansion of object disputes state Administration. The object of the state Administration dispute in this Act is different from its elements to the Law of the State administrative justice. One of these is a written stipulation that includes factual action. There is no explanation for the meaning of factual acts in this Administrative Administration Act. Therefore, further research is needed in this regard. This study aims to find out and understand the meaning of factual actions in Article 87 letter (a) of Law Number 30 of 2014. This study uses a qualitative approach to the type of research Normative Juridical. Data collection techniques are Library study is to collect data conducted by reading, quoting, recording and understanding various literature that have to do with research material. The object of the state Administration disputed in Law Number 5 of 1986 and its amendment has expanded on Law Number 30 Year 2014 on Government Administration. When the object of the dispute expands, it will affect the decision taken by the legal practitioner in this case is the state Administration judge.

scholarly journals Resolution of Disputes Regarding Unlawful Acts by the Government in the Administrative Justice System in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 264
Author(s):  
. Ridwan
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

This study aims to analyze the expansion of the absolute competence of Administrative Courts to examine factual actions and/or illegal acts by the government. This paper is a doctrinal legal research using statute and conceptual approach. The result of this study argued that the expansion posed a legal problem since the absolute authority is determined by law. In this case, it is transferred through a Supreme Court Regulation without changing the law. The other problem was also found in the legal basis for judicial review and limited compensation. Ideally, it should be preceded by amending the law, broadening the legal basis for review, and providing fair compensation.   Received: 27 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 September 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document