Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai Perbuatan Melawan Hukum yang dilakukan Pemerintah dalam penyelenggaraan Ujian Nasional pada tahun 2006 dan digugat oleh warga negara melalui gugatan Citizen Lawsuit. Terdapat perbedaan antara konsep Perbuatan Melawan Hukum dalam Hukum Perdata dengan konsep pada Citizen Lawsuit. Perbedaan tersebut terletak pada unsur kerugian, yang mana dalam gugatan citizen lawsuit Penggugat tidak diharuskan memiliki kerugian yang nyata. Selain itu, dalam gugatan citizen lawsuit, para penggugat tidak diperkenankan untuk meminta ganti kerugian kepada Pemerintah. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan bentuk penelitian hukum yuridis-normatif. Hasil penelitian ini adalah diterimanya Gugatan Citizen Lawsuit oleh Pengadilan dan Majelis Hakim menerima gugatan meskipun tidak menuntut ganti kerugian kepada Pemerintah.

---

This thesis explains about Government tort in national exam implementation in 2006 which is sued by citizens through Citizen Lawsuit. There are differences in a concept of unlawful act in civil law and in the citizen lawsuit. One of the differences lie in element of damages, in which in citizen lawsuit, the plaintiffs are not obliged to have real damages. Besides that, in citizen lawsuit, the plaintiffs are not allowed to demand remedy from Government. This research is a qualitative research in the form of yuridis-normatif research. The result of this thesis is the acceptance of citizen lawsuit by the court and the council of judges accepts the suit even though there is no remedy demanded from the Government."

"Citizen lawsuit merupakan mekanisme bagi warga negara untuk menggugat tanggung jawab penyelenggara negara atas kelalaiannya dalam memenuhi hak-hak warga negara. Citizen lawsuit belum diatur secara khusus dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia sehingga rujukan yang dapat digunakan oleh Hakim untuk memutus gugatan citizen lawsuit adalah Surat Keputusan Ketua Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 36/KMA/SK/11/2013 tentang Pemberlakuan Pedoman Penanganan Perkara Lingkungan Hidup. Penelitian ini akan membahas mengenai perkembangan hukum gugatan citizen lawsuit di Indonesia dan perbandingannya dengan Negara Amerika Serikat dan India serta bagaimana akibat hukum jika warga negara sebagai pihak ketiga ingin membatalkan suatu perjanjian yang termasuk tindakan dalam ranah hukum privat dengan menggunakan mekanisme citizen lawsuit berdasarkan studi kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Bojonegoro Nomor 29/PDT.G/2020/PN.BJN. Bentuk hasil penelitian dalam skripsi ini adalah deskriptif-analitis dan hasil penelitian ini menyarankan agar Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat sebaiknya dapat menambah materi mengenai gugatan citizen lawsuit pada Rancangan Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Perdata (RUU HAPER) agar terciptanya suatu kepastian hukum. Namun, dalam jangka waktu dekat selama 1 (satu) sampai 2 (dua) tahun ini, Mahkamah Agung seyogyanya dapat segera membentuk pedoman mengenai gugatan citizen lawsuit yang dapat diformulasikan dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung (PERMA) yang diharapkan mampu menjelaskan hal-hal spesifik dalam gugatan citizen lawsuit. Kemudian warga negara yang nantinya akan mengajukan gugatan citizen lawsuit diharapkan dapat lebih teliti dalam menganalisis hubungan hukum dan dasar hukum dalam mengajukan gugatan karena baik pihak penggugat maupun tergugat dalam suatu gugatan harus betul-betul mempunyai kedudukan serta kapasitas yang tepat menurut hukum.

---

Citizen lawsuit is a mechanism for citizens to sue the responsibility of state administrators for their negligence in fulfilling the rights of citizens. Citizen lawsuits have not been specifically regulated in the regulations in Indonesia so the reference that can be used by judges to decide on citizen lawsuits is the Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 36/KMA/SK/11/2013 concerning the Implementation of Guidelines for Handling Environmental Cases. This study will discuss the development of citizen lawsuits in Indonesia and their comparison within the United States and India and what are the legal consequences if a citizen as a third party wants to cancel an agreement which includes actions in the realm of private law by using a citizen lawsuit mechanism based on a case study Bojonegoro District Court Number 29/PDT.G/2020/PN.BJN. The form of the results of the research in this thesis is descriptive-analytical and the results of this study suggest that the House of Representatives should be able to add material regarding citizen lawsuits to the Draft Civil Procedure Law (RUU HAPER) to create legal certainty. However, soon for 1 (one) to 2 (two) years, the Supreme Court should be able to immediately form guidelines regarding citizen lawsuits that can be formulated in a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) which is expected to be able to explain specific things in the lawsuit especially in the citizen lawsuits and hope through citizens who will sue lawsuits regarding citizen lawsuits they become more careful in which is expected to be able to explain specific things in the lawsuit especially in the connection of law and legal basis of suing the citizen lawsuit, because both the plaintiff and the defendant in a lawsuit must have the right position and capacity according to the law."

"Tanggung gugat (Vicarious Liability) adalah doktrin yang menyatakan bahwa majikan akan bertanggung jawab atas kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh bawahannya, sejauh perbuatan tersebut dilakukan dalam lingkup/bagian dari pekerjaannya. Pasal 1367 ayat (3) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (KUHPer) merupakan penjelmaan dari doktrin Vicarious Liability. Terdapat banyak masalah dalam penerapan tanggung gugat (Vicarious Liability), yaitu masalah dalam menguraikan unsur-unsur yang harus dipenuhi untuk membebankan tanggung gugat (Vicarious Liability) kepada majikan. Penulisan skripsi ini akan menganalisis masalah tanggung gugat dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 2498 K/Pdt/2000, dimana terdapat perbedaan pertimbangan atas pembebanan tanggung gugat di tingkat Pengadilan Negeri dan Pengadilan Tinggi, dengan Mahkamah Agung. Metode penelitian yang digunakan penulis adalah Penelitian Kepustakaan, dimana dalam menganalisis permasalahan tanggung gugat ini, penulis mengacu pada norma hukum yaitu pasal 1367 ayat (3) KUHPer serta doktrin-doktrin yang berlaku di masyarakat. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa untuk membebankan tanggung gugat kepada majikan, kesemua unsur di dalam pasal 1367 ayat (3) KUHPer haruslah dipenuhi, oleh karena itu majikan tidak bertanggung jawab terhadap perbuatan melawan hukum bawahan yang bukan merupakan lingkup/bagian dari pekerjaan.

---

Vicarious liability is a doctrine which states that master will be liable for any tort commited by servant, as far as such action is related to the course of employment. Article 1367 paragraph 3 of Indonesian Civil Law is the embodiment of the doctrine of Vicarious Liability. In the implementation of vicarious liability doctrine, there are a lot of problem in explaining the elements that should be fullfiled to impose the liability on the master. This thesis will analyze the issue of vicarious liability in the Supreme Court verdict No. 2498/K/Pdt/2000, where there are differences in consideration of the imposition of vicarious liability in the District court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. Research methods used by the writer is Research Library, where in analyzing issues of the vicarious liability, writer refers to the legal norm, namely Article 1367 paragraph (3) Indonesian Civil Code, as well as legal doctrines prevailing in the society. The results of this research states that, all the elements in the Article 1367 paragraph (3) Indonesian Civil Code must be fullfilled in order to be able to impose the vicarious liability, therefore the master is not responsible for the tort committed by the servant that is not in the course of employment."

"Dalam konsep tanggung gugat majikan atau atasan, majikan bertanggung jawab atas kerugian yang ditimbulkan oleh bawahannya. Hanya saja, belum terdapat kejelasan mengenai cara menarik pertanggungjawaban dua orang atasan terhadap kesalahan bawahannya. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dasar-dasar apa yang tepat digunakan menuntut pertanggungjawaban pelaku perbuatan melawan hukum (PMH) beserta para atasannya. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode yuridis normatif yang objek penelitiannya adalah sebuah putusan Mahkamah Agung. Pertanggungjawaban para atasan ialah tergantung dari perannya masing-masing. Hal tersebut dapat dilihat berdasarkan profijt theorie atau apakah ia mendapatkan keuntungan dari perbuatan si pelaku PMH (bawahan), gevaarzetting theorie atau apakah ia meminta bantuan kepada pelaku PMH untuk mengerjakan sesuatu, atau cukup dengan adanya hubungan antara hubungan antara kesalahan dan pekerjaan bawahan walaupun tanpa adanya instruksi kerja kepada bawahan. Dalam kasus yang menjadi objek penelitian, Tergugat I bertanggung jawab selaku pelaku PMH, kemudian Tergugat II bertanggung jawab atas dasar profijt theorie serta karena adanya hubungan antara kesalahan dan pekerjaan Tergugat I, dan Edward bertanggung jawab berdasarkan gevaarzetting theorie dan karena perannya sebagai pemberi instruksi kerja.

---

Within vicarious liability, an employer or superior is vicariously liable for the tort of his subordinate. Furthermore, there needs to be an assertion on what are the prominent considerations in the case of more than one superior. The purpose of this study is to identify the considerations to strive for superiors liability over the tort of their subordinate. This research was conducted through legal normative approach with an award of the Mahkamah Agung as the primary data. Superiors liability can be based on the role each of them invest in, that can be considered from profijt theorie, gevaarzetting theorie, or from the relation between the tort and the work of the subordinate even without any instruction from any superior. The result is that the primary defendant is liable for his own tort, the secondary defendant is held liable for profijt theorie and the relation between the tort and the work of the primary defendant, and another party namely Edward, may also be held liable because of gevaarzetting theorie also since his role is as the work instructor to the primary defendant."

"Citizen Lawsuit atau Gugatan Warga Negara memiliki arti Citizen Lawsuit atau Actio Popularis, gugatan warga Negara kepada penyelenggara Negara yang tidak menjalankan kewajiban hukumnya untuk menyelenggarakan Negara sesuai dengan hukum yang berlaku. yakni umum yang memuat pengertian, gagasan pokok, karakteristik serta unsur-unsur. Citizen Lawsuit mempunyai keterikatan dengan bidang hukum perdata khususunya perikatan yakni perbuatan melawan hukum (PMH) dari aspek yang dilannggap, dan hubungannya dengan penguasa sedikit mempunyai ikatan dengan hukum administrasi mengenai hal perbuatan melawan hukum oleh penguasa yang melanggar. Keberadaan doktrin Citizen Lawsuit di Indonesia berawal dari penemuan hukum (rechtsvinding). Pengakuan terhadap Citizen Lawsuit ini ada melalui pendapat para ahli hukum yang dalam hal ini adalah hakim sehingga diangkat sebagai sumber hukum formiil, mengingat peraturan tertulis belum ada. Dalam doktrin Citizen Lawsuit belum diatur secara khusus dan eksplisit konsep ini dimulai dengan adanya gugatan mengenai Imigran Indonesia yang dideportasi oleh Pemerintah Malaysia ke Kalimantan Timur Indonesia.Skripsi ini mengangkat kasus antara Warga Negara dan Pemerintah tentang sengeketa adanya perbuatan melawan hukum oleh PT. PLN (Persero) sebagai tergugat serta David. M.L. Tobing dan Agus Soetopo sebagai Penggugat dalam menggugat haknya sebagai warga negara yang telah dilanggar oleh negara dengan adanya tindakan pemadaman listrik bergilir secara sepihak. Hal lainnya ialah mencermati kemungkinan-kemungkinan dari penerapan konsep Citizen Lawsuit ini dalam praktek peradilan di Indonesia yang pengaturannya melihat pada peraturan-peraturan perundang-undang yang ada dengan mengsinergiskan terhadap konsep dan doktrin Citizen Lawsuit.

---

Citizen Citizen Lawsuit or Class Action Lawsuit has a meaning or actio popularis Citizen, a citizen suit to the organizers state that does not run its legal obligation to hold the State in accordance with applicable law. namely general load sense, central idea, the characteristics and elements. Citizen Lawsuit have some attachment to the field of civil law in particular engagements which tort (PMH), and its relationship with the authorities have little legal ties to the administration of this unlawful act by the authorities. The existence of the doctrine of Citizen Lawsuit in Indonesia started from legal discovery (rechtsvinding). Citizen Lawsuit recognition of this there is through the opinions of legal experts in this case is the judge so appointed as a source of formal law, given that there are no written rules. In Citizen Lawsuit doctrine has not been specifically and explicitly set this concept began with a lawsuit regarding the Indonesian imigrants who were deported by the Government of Malaysia to East Kalimantan, Indonesia.This thesis is lifting cases between citizens and government about the dispute over the existence of an unlawful act by PT. PLN (Persero) as a defendant and David. M.L. Tobing and Agus Soetopo as plaintiffs in suing their rights as citizens who have been violated by the state by the act of rotating power cuts unilaterally. The other thing is to examine the possibilities of applying the concept of Citizen Lawsuit in practice the judiciary in Indonesia which settings look at the rules and regulations of existing laws to synergize to the concepts and doctrine Citizen Lawsuit."

"Gugatan Warga Negara (Citizen Lawsuit) merupakan gugatan yang diadopsi dari negara Common Law dan masih belum diatur secara jelas dalam peraturan perundangan-undangan Indonesia. Akan tetapi, keberadaan Citizen Lawsuit kini bukanlah barang baru di Indonesia, sudah ada beberapa putusan yang mendasarkan gugatannya dengan mekanisme Citizen Lawsuit sudah diterima dan diputus oleh Pengadilan. Kasus Ujian Nasional merupakan salah satunya. Kasus ini telah diterima dan diputus oleh Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat sampai pada Mahkamah Agung, dan merupakan kasus Citizen Lawsuit pertama yang mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap. Hal yang menjadi permasalahan adalah tidak sedikit gugatan yang tidak dapat diterima karena tidak adanya pengaturan yang spesifik mengenai Citizen Lawsuit serta apa saja unsur-unsurnya, yang mengakibatkan ketidaktahuan banyak pihak. Peran Hakim dalam mengangani perkara ini menjadi sangat penting, terutama dalam hal penemuan hukum.

---

Citizen Lawsuit is a lawsuit adopted from Common Law countries and is still not specifically regulated in Indonesia's laws and regulations. However, the existence of Citizen Lawsuit is now not a new stuff in Indonesia's legal system, there have been several decisions base upon Citizen Lawsuit mechanism which has been accepted and decided by the Court. The case of National Exam is one of them. This case has been accepted and decided by the Central Jakarta District Court until Supreme Court, and is the first case of Citizen Lawsuit that have permanent legal force. The problem is, not a few lawsuits can not be accepted due to lack of specific regulation concerning Citizen Lawsuit and its elements, which resulted in ignorance of many parties. The role of Judges in handling this case becomes very important, especially in legal finding."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang ajaran Penyalahgunaan Keadaan sebagai Alasan Pembatalan Perjanjian dalam Hukum Perjanjian di Indonesia. Meskipun tidak diatur dalam sebuah hukum positif, Ajaran Penyalahgunaan keadaan seringkali ditemukan dan menjadi dasar pada putusan hakim. Lalu bagaimana pengaturan ajaran penyalahgunaan keadaan dalam sistem hukum Indonesia? Tesis ini akan dibahas dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normative dengan analisa norma-norma hukum yang berlaku, yang terdapat dalam peraturan perundangundangan dan juga dalam berbagai putusan pengadilan. Bahwa dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia, khususnya dalam peraturan perundangan, tidak dikenal adanya ajaran ataupun adanya pengaturan mengenai Penyalahgunaan Keadaan, yakni sebagai alasan pembatalan perjanjian karena adanya cacat kehendak salah satu pihak dalam membuat suatu perjanjian. Hukum Positif Perjanjian di Indonesia. Namun dalam memutus sebuah perkara, Hakim dapat menemukan hukum dengan didasarkan adanya ajaran hukum yang berkembang, dalam hal ini, Hakim menggunakan ajaran penyalahgunaan keadaan. Oleh karena itu, perlu adanya pengaturan mengenai penyalahgunaan keadaan dan dengan adanya pengaturan tentang Penyalahgunaan Keadaan, maka Hakim dalam memutus dan mengadili perkara memiliki keseragaman akan syarat-syarat yang termasuk atau tergolong kepada Penyalahgunaan Keadaan.

---

This thesis discusses of Abuse of Circumstances Doctrine as a reason of the annulment of agreement in Contract Law in Indonesia. Although the doctrine not regulated, it often found in judge verdict. Then, what legal basis for the doctrine in Indonesia law system? This thesis will be discussed by using research methods to analyze the law-norms, which is found in a legislation and also in various verdict. The Indonesian law system, in particular legislation, has not been regulated the doctrine of the abuse of circumstances, hence, the reason for the annulement of the contract by a party who did not full-freely act in a contract. Yet in a matter decided, the Judge can find the law to be based legal developed, in this case, the judge uses the doctrine of abuse of circumstances. Therefore, there should be arrangements regarding abuse of the circumstances doctrine into a regulation, so the judge in the verdict and will have consistency conditions that include or belong to the abuse of circumstances."

"Penelitian ini membahas analisis putusan gugatan PT A terkait penentuan saat terutang dan pelaporan PPN atas kegiatan ekspor BKP Berwujud serta membandingkan ketentuan yang berlaku di Indonesia dan Singapura.Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menganalisis dasar pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam memutus kasus gugatan PT A apakah sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku di Indonesia terkait saat terutang dan pelaporan PPN atas kegiatan ekspor BKP Berwujud serta dengan mempertimbangkan teori serta asas ease of administration dan membandingkan kebijakan terkait saat terutang dan pelaporan PPN atas kegiatan ekspor BKP Berwujud di Indonesia dengan Singapura. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data melalui wawancara mendalam dan studi kepustkaan. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa dasar hasil pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam memutus sengketa gugatan PT A tidak sesuai dengan peraturan yang berlaku di Indonesia serta tidak memenuhi asas ease of administration. Dengan dilakukannya perbandingan kebijakan kegiatan ekspor BKP Berwujud antara Indonesia dan Singapura, dapat disimpulkan bahwa baik Indonesia dan Singapura dalam menentukan saat terutang PPN menggunakan pendekatan proxy expenditure tax dan terkait kewajiban pelaporan dapat disimpulkan bahwa peraturan Indonesia dianggap lebih fleksibel bagi Wajib Pajak dan Pemerintah dibandingkan dengan Negara Singapura karena pelaporan yang dilakukan berdasarkan tanggal persetujuan PEB bukan berdasarkan periode pembukuan akuntansi Wajib Pajak.

---

This research discuss about the PT A’s lawsuit decision analysis of the taxable event and VAT filing related to the export of tangible taxable goods and to compared the applicable regulation in Indonesia and Singapore. The purpose of this research is to analyze the suitability of judges’ considerations with the applicable regulation in Indonesia in deciding PT A’s lawsuit dispute matters related to the taxable event and VAT filing on export of tangible taxable goods considering the ease of administration principle and also to compared the Indonesia’s regulation with Singapore’s regulation. This research used a qualitative approach with indepth interview and literature study as a data collection. The results of this research concluded that the consideration of judges in deciding the lawsuit matter does not in accordance with the applicable regulation in Indonesia, theory, and ease of administration principle. The comparison of the Indonesia’s regulations related to export activities with Singapore’s regulation can be concluded that regarding the determination of the expenditure tax proxy to determine the taxable event on the export of tangible taxable goods activities and regarding the filing obligations, it can be concluded that Indonesia’s regulation is more flexible for the Taxpayer and Government rather than the Singapore’s regulation because the basis tax filing in Indonesia is based on the date of approval declaration not from the Taxpayer’s accounting period."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai klasifikasi perbuatan melawan hukum dan wanprestasi dalam pelanggaran terhadap suatu transaksi terapeutik. Pembahasan dalam skripsi ini mencakup perbuatan melawan hukum dan wanprestasi ditinjau dari Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata, aspek hukum dari hubungan dokter dan pasien, termasuk pengaturan transaksi terapeutik dan penerapan pengaturan mengenai transaksi terapeutik dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan No. 1809/Pdt.G/2006/PN.Jak.Sel. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa (1) transaksi terapeutik merupakan perjanjian tidak bernama, dapat pula merupakan perjanjian untuk melakukan suatu jasa tertentu, (2) perbuatan melawan hukum dan wanprestasi dapat diajukan kepada transaksi terapeutik inspanningverbintenis dan resultaatverbintenis dengan memperhatikan obyek atau prestasi yang dijanjikan dalam transaksi terapeutik tersebut, (3) perbuatan para dokter dalam kasus ini merupakan perbuatan melawan hukum karena dalam melaksanakan tugasnya, para dokter tersebut telah lalai dan tidak berhati-hati.

---

This thesis is discussing about torts and non-performance and its relationship with therapeutic transaction. This thesis will be focused on three issues, torts and nonperformance according to Indonesian Civil Code, legal aspect of the relationship between doctor and patient and the implementation of the regulations about therapeutic transaction in the case of Decision of South Jakarta District Court No. 1809/Pdt.G/2006/PN.Jak.Sel. The result of this research states that (1) therapeutic transaction constitutes as inominaatcontracten and agreement to perform certain services, (2) torts and non-performance may be submitted to inspanningverbintenis and resultaatverbintenis therapeutic transaction by considering the object of the agreement, (3) the actions of the doctors in this case constitutes as the tort, which the doctors was negligent in performing their duties."

"[ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai perbuatan melawan hukum yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah, dalam hal ini Menteri Perhubungan cq. Direktorat Jenderal Perhubungan Udara pada kasus perlakuan diskriminatif oleh PT Lion Air terhadap Ridwan Sumantri sebagai penumpang penyandang cacat. Direktorat Jenderal Perhubungan Udara dianggap bertanggungjawab atas perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh penyedia jasa penerbangan PT Lion Air dan penyelenggara kebandarudaraan PT Angkasa Pura II. Direktorat Jenderal Perhubungan dianggap tidak hanya sebagai regulator dalam bidang penerbangan namun juga sebagai pembina yang mencakup antara lain aspek pengaturan, pengendalian, dan pengawasan terhadap kepatuhan penyedia jasa angkutan udara serta penyelenggara kebandarudaraan dalam menjalankan peraturan perundang-undangan bidang penerbangan.ABSTRACTThis paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations;This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations, This paper discusses the unlawful act committed by the government, represented by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Minister of Transportation, in case of discriminatory treatment by PT Lion Air to Ridwan Sumantri as a passenger with disabilities. DGCA held responsible for acts committed by PT Lion Air as an airline and PT Angkasa Pura II as airport administrator. DGCA considered not only as a regulator on civil aviation, but also as an authority on regulation, control, and supervision of the compliance of airline service provider as well as airport administrator on executing civil aviation regulations]"