Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Since eradicating corruption having been continously encouraged by late governments ? and until now ? , there would not be less important as to retracting the corrupted assets. There are many aspects to be considered in doing such action, such as manifesting the legal aspects of administrative law, and so other applied national regulations. By these regulations, such as Law No. 7 of 2006 on Ratification of United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2003 (Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa Anti-Korupsi, 2003), Law Number 25 of 2003 On Amendment to Law Number 15 of 2002 on Money Laundering, Act 30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission, Law Number 20 Year 2001 regarding Amendment to Law Number 31 Year 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, and Government Regulation Number 65 of 1999 on Implementation Procedures for Examination of State Property, retraction the corrupted assets should be define in order to get known about eradicating corruption. Another issue that urgently to be defined, as it also become main subject of retracting assets, is the asset itself. Indeed, as the asset which become mainly discussed about is State assets. So, it would be very necessary to clearly have a distinction between State responsibility and that of irresponsibility of the State, in order to settle down, as an after effect, many interpretations."

"Accountability is the key to good governance. In global administrative law, every policy made should be accountable. The given law should be accessible to the public. At the time of the global financial crisis, many countries did not have the necessary rules to solve the problems that arose. In Indonesia, the government?s decision to bail out Bank Century has remained controversial up to the present time. The need for a comprehensive law dealing with economic, political and social factors should be considered. The Indonesian Law regarding Government Administration provides for the code of conduct for government action. An entire chapter in the law has been dedicated to set out provisions on discretion, reflecting a two-way approach, namely: restriction of government action on the one hand and the protection of public rights on the other. In practice, however, such rule is not implemented in line with the intended formulation. There is still a need for harmonization with the law regarding State Administration Courts in Indonesia.

---

Akuntabilitas adalah kunci dari pemerintahan yang baik. Dalam hukum administrasi global, setiap kebijakan harus dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Hukum yang ada harus bisa diakses oleh masyarakat. Ketika krisis keuangan global terjadi, banyak negara tidak memiliki hukum positif untuk mengatasinya. Di Indonesia, keputusan pemerintah dalam membailout Bank Century menjadi perdebatan sampai saat ini. Kebutuhan akan hukum yang komprehensif terkait ekonomi, politik dan sosial harus dipertimbangkan. UU Administrasi Pemerintahan Indonesia telah menyiapkan aturan dalam bertindak bagi pemerintah. Penempatan diskresi dalam satu bab tersendiri dapat dilihat dari dua sisi, batasan terhadap tindakan pemerintah sekaligus perlindungan bagi hak publik. Pada praktiknya, pelaksanaan dari aturan tersebut tidak semudah rumusan yang dimaksud. Harmonisasi dengan UU Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara masih dibutuhkan."

"Ketentuan mengenai peradilan administrasi dijabarkan melalui UU Nomor 5 tahun 1986 tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Selanjutnya UU tersebut mengalami perubahan beberapa ketentuan di dalamnya. Perubahan tersebut dituangkan di dalam UU No 9 tahun 2004 tentang Perubahan terhadap UU Nomor 5 tahun 1986 tentang PTUN. Keberadaan peradilan administrasi/TUN di Indonesia sesungguhnya adalah satu langkah maju. Pengadilan TUN menjadi satu lingkungan peradilan tersendiri yang terpisah dari peradilan umum (perdata) di mana pengadilan TUN dapat memfokuskan perhatiannya, serta berkonsentrasi hanya pada sengketa administrasi saja. Obyek sengketa peradilan ini adalah Keputusan TUN. Kewenangan pengadilan TUN untuk memutuskan sengketa kewenangan Tata Usaha Negara, menjadi semacam kontrol yudisial (judicial control) bagi pelaksanaan kepemerintahan yang baik (Good Governance) dan pelaksanaan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang layak (AAUPL). Agar tidak ada pejabat TUN herlaku dan bertindak sewenang-wenang dengan membuat Keputusan yang tidak patut, balk secara formal maupun materiil. Peradilan TUN juga menjadi sarana bagi para pencari keadilan untuk memperoleh keadilan, sekaligus sebagai perlindungan dari pemberlakuan keputusan administratif (yang dikeluarkan oleh pejabat TUN) yang diindikasikan sewenang-wenang. Puncak dari proses peradilan adalah pada pelaksanaan eksekusi putusannya, yakni pada saa4 mana hak-hak pencari keadilan diperoleh. Pelaksanaan putusan pengadilan adalah pada cabang kekuasaan eksekutif, dalam hal ini adalah pejabat-pejabat TUN. Di Indonesia diperoleh data bahwa sebagian besar putusan Pengadilan TUN tidak dilaksanakan oleh pejabat TUN. Ini berarti bahwa putusan pengadilan yang seharusnya automatically executed, tidak terlaksana. Di Indonesia, pelaksanaan putusan bertumpu kepada kesadaran dan inisiatif pejabat TUN yang bersangkutan. Karena kesadaran hukum masih rendah, maka pengabalan putusan pengadilan oleh pejabat TUN telah mencederai penghormatan terhadap supremasi hukum sekaligus mengabaikan hak atas keadilan bagi warga negara. Sistem peradilan administrasi di Indonesia dipandang belum cukup memadai untuk memaksa para pejabat TUN melaksanakan putusan pengadilan administrasi. Hal ini diantaranya disebabkan oleh tidak tersedianya ketentuan (hukum acara) yang mengatur pelaksanaan pemberian sanksi bagi pejabat yang tidak melaksanakan putusan pengadilan TUN. Ketentuan di dalam pasal 116 huruf c,d,dan e UU Nomor 9 tahun 2004 belum dapat diimplementasikan tanpa ketentuan yang lebih rinci yang mengatur pemberian sanksi.

---

The focus of this study is regarding the fulfillment of right to justice through execution of administrative court's decision. Administrative Court in Indonesia is regulated within Act No.5/1986 concerning Administrative Court. In 2004, This Act is revised by the Act No.9/2004 Concerning The Revision of Act. No. 5/1985 of Administrative Court. The existence of Administrative Court is a progress, in the context of law in Indonesia. Administrative Court being a spesific court which is separated from the General Court (Frovate Court) in order to focus on its jurisdiction of administrative dispute. The Object of this Court is the decision which is made by the Government Official. This ini in the frame of administrative dispute. Within this purpose, Administrative Court is like a judicial control of the application of good governance and the general norm of a proper government. It is to make sure that the official government not to make a decision without compunction (in formal or material). Administrative Court is also a means of the citizen to get their right to justice, to be protected by the state from the decisions which are made by the official government alleged a violation in it. The top of the court process is implementation or execution of the decision of the court. It is the fulfillment of the right to justice to the citizen. The Implementation is in the executive power, in this context are government officials. But in Indonesia. We gain the data which contain the obidience of the court's decision by the most government officials. Court decision must automatically executed. But in Indonesia, it is not implemented properly. The implementation is depend on the awareness and initiative of the particular government officials to do the execution. Because of the law obedience is quite law, many problems appear regarding the negligance of these government officials. The negligance defect the supremacy of law and also the right to justice of the citizen. Administrative Court System in Indonesia has not been adequate to force the government officials to implement the court's decision. It is accasioned by insufficience of content of the regulation in Act 5/1986 and in Act 9/2004 in sanction for the government officials who are disobey the decision of administrative court. The sanction which is mentioned in article 116 c, d and f (Act No.9/2004) has not been implemented becouse there is no particularly arrangment concerning the sanction to the government officials who neglect the court decision."