Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Pasca berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan, kompetensi mengadili pengadilan tata usaha negara (PTUN) mengalami perluasan kompetensi absolut yang sangat signifikan. Kewenangan untuk mengadili objek sengketa tidak saja berupa keputusan tata usaha negara (KTUN) tetapi termasuk juga tindakan faktual badan dan/atau pejabat pemerintahan. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana implikasi perluasan kompetensi mengadili peradilan tata usaha negara pasca berlakunya UU AP dan bagaimana titik singgung kompetensi mengadili sengketa onrechtmatige overheidsdaad antara peradilan umum dengan peradilan tata usaha negara. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan mengkaji asas-asas hukum, peraturan perundang-undangan serta putusan pengadilan yang bersifat inkracht van gewijsde yang berkaitan dengan permasalahan hukum yang dibahas. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa implikasi perluasan kompetensi mengadili peradilan tata usaha negara terhadap perbuatan melanggar hukum oleh badan dan/atau pejabat pemerintahan (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad) pasca berlakunya UU AP adalah meliputi tindakan administrasi pemerintahan termasuk tindakan faktual yang dilakukan oleh badan dan/atau pejabat administrasi pemerintahan dan benang merah titik singgung kompetensi mengadili antara peradilan umum dengan peradilan tata usaha negara terhadap sengketa onrechtmatige overheidsdaad adalah walaupun suatu tindakan administrasi pemerintahan sama-sama dilakukan oleh subjek hukumnya badan dan/atau pejabat pemerintahan tetap harus dilihat terlebih dahulu sumber atau dasar dilakukannya tindakan administrasi pemerintahan tersebut.

---

After the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, the competence to adjudicate at the State Administrative Court (PTUN) experienced a very significant expansion of absolute competence. The authority to adjudicate the object of the dispute is not only in the form of state administrative decisions (KTUN) but also includes factual actions of government bodies and/or officials. The problem in this research is what are the implications of expanding the competence to adjudicate state administrative courts after the enactment of the AP Law and what are the points of contact for competence to adjudicate on-rechtmatige overheidsdaad disputes between the general court and the state administrative court. This type of research is normative juridical legal research by examining legal principles, statutory regulations and inkracht van gewijsde court decisions related to the legal issues discussed. The results of the research show that the implications of expanding the competency to adjudicate state administrative courts regarding unlawful acts by government bodies and/or officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad) after the enactment of the AP Law are to include government administration actions including factual actions carried out by government administration bodies and/or officials and The common thread that touches on the competency to adjudicate between the general judiciary and the state administrative judiciary regarding disputes on rechtmatige overheidsdaad is that even though a government administrative action is equally carried out by the legal subject, government bodies and/or officials must first look at the source or basis for carrying out the government administrative action."

"Pergeseran kompetensi absolut dari peradilan umum (PN) ke peradilan tata usaha negara (PTUN) dalam mengadili gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum oleh penguasa (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad/OOD) secara tiba-tiba berdasarkan Perma 2/2019 memunculkan 2 (dua) persoalan utama yakni perbedaan parameter penilai tindakan pemerintah dari segi hukum perdata dengan hukum administrasi negara dan pengurangan jangka waktu mengajukan gugatan dari 30 (tiga puluh) tahun menjadi 90 (sembilan puluh) hari. Penelitian ini berbentuk yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan terdapat perbedaan parameter penilai Gugatan OOD di PN dan PTUN, dimana PN menggunakan 4 parameter alternatif berupa pertentangan dengan 1) peraturan perundang-undangan; 2) hak subjektif; 3) kesusilaan; atau 4) kepatutan, sedangkan PTUN menggunakan 5 parameter alternatif berupa 1) peraturan; 2) AUPB; 3) kewenangan; 4) prosedur; atau 5) substansi. Idealnya, PTUN menyerap parameter PN mengenai bersifat melawan hukum agar tolak ukur pengujian di PTUN mencakup hukum tidak tertulis. Jangka waktu pengajuan Gugatan OOD ke PTUN terbatas 90 (sembilan puluh) hari sejak tindakan tersebut dilakukan dan diketahui, konsep ini tidak memberikan perlindungan hukum yang tepat bagi warga masyarakat. Idealnya, Gugatan OOD dapat diajukan kapanpun sejak muncul kerugian nyata atau kerugian potensial yang sangat dekat bagi warga masyarakat.

---

The absolute competency-shifting in adjudicating a lawsuits against the law by authorities from the general court to the state administration court suddenly based on Supreme Court Regulation No. 2/2019 raises 2 (two) issues regarding differences in the parameters of evaluating government actions in terms of civil law with state administration law and a significant reduction in the time period for filing a lawsuit from 30 (thirty) years to 90 (ninety) days. This research takes the form of a normative juridical approach to the rule of law. This study concludes there are differences in the parameters of the OOD Claims between general and administrative court. PN uses 4 alternative parameters in the form of conflict against 1) law regulation; 2) other people subjective rights; 3) morality; or 4) propiety. Administrative court uses 5 alternative parameters in the form of 1) statutory regulations; 2) General Principle of Good Governance; 3) authority; 4) procedure; or 5) substance. Ideally, the Administrative Court absorbs parameter from the general court. The time period for filing an OOD Lawsuit to administrative court is limited to 90 (ninety) days from the time the action was taken and it is known, this concept does not provide proper legal protection for community members. Since the Administrative Lawsuit and the OOD Lawsuit have different loss characteristics, ideally, the expiration date of the OOD Lawsuit can be filed at any time since a real loss or potential loss is very close to the community members. "

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini berangkat dari permasalahan ketidakjelasan dari konsep Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara yang merupakan perbuatan hukum perdata sebagaimana yang diatur dalam pasal 2 huruf a Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1986 Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara sebagai pengecualian kompetensi absolut dimana dalam praktiknya menimbulkan kebingungan bagi penegak hukum dan masyarakat sehingga sering memunculkan persinggungan yuridiksi mengadili antara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara dan Peradilan Umum. Penelitian ini memiliki rumusan masalah tentang bagaimanakah konsep dari Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara yang merupakan Perbuatan Hukum Perdata dan problematika apakah yang ditimbulkan di Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Berdasarkan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan, komparatif, dan kasus dalam penelitian ini, ditemukan bahwa konsep dari Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara yang merupakan perbuatan hukum perdata adalah tindakan pemerintah yang dilakukan berdasarkan hukum publik untuk mengantarkan pemerintah dalam melakukan hubungan perdata sehingga dianggap melebur ke dalam tindakan perdata. Dengan demikian dapat dilihat bahwa ternyata masih ada sengketa administrasi diselesaikan di Pengadilan Negeri. Untuk itu ke depan, tidak ada lagi sengketa administrasi yang diperiksa dan di adili di Pengadilan Negeri dan seiring dengan perkembangan masyarakat dan peraturan perundang-undangan perlu dilakukan restrukturisasi kompetensi absolut Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara melalui revisi Undang-Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara demi mewujudkan sistem peradilan yang terintegrasi, sederhana, cepat, dan biaya ringan.

---

ABSTRACT

This research departs from the obscurity problem of the concept of State Administrative Decision which is a civil law action regulated in article 2 letter a of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts as competent competencies, while in practice, in accordance with the demands of law enforcement and the community often raises jurisdiction over trial between the State Administrative Court and the General Courts. This research has a problem statement about the decision of the concept of State Administration which is the Act of Civil Law and what problems are caused in the State Administrative Court. Based on the normative juridical research method using invitational, comparative, and case studies in this study, it was found in the concept of State Administrative Decision which is a civil law action that is a government action carried out based on community law to deliver the government in making relations merging into action civil. Thus it can be seen that it turns out that there are still administrations that are settled in the District Court. For that going forward, there will be no more administrative disputes needed and tried in the District Court and in accordance with the development of the community and the necessary regulations will be carried out restructuring the absolute coordination of the State Administrative Court through the revision of the State Administrative Court Law to create a justice system integrated, simple, fast and light.

"

"[ABSTRAK Tesis ini merupakan kajian yang hendak melihat konsep lembaga yangberwenang dalam sebuah proses peradilan. Relevansi antar lembaga sebagaimanadimaksud yaitu Komisi Informasi dan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara adalahberwenang dalam proses penyelesaian sengketa keterbukaan informasi publik.tujuan daripada keterbukaan informasi publik adalah dalam rangka mengawalkebebasan informasi sebagai falsafah Hak Asasi Manusia dalam generasi ketiga.Dalam penelitian ini menggunakan teori Hukum, teori Politik Hukum Nasional,Teori Pembagian Kekuasaan dan Kekuasaan Keempat, kerangka konsep yangdigunakan yaitu peradilan administrasi dalam perspektif politik hukum danKebebasan atas informasi sebagai HAM.Hasil dari penelitian menunjukan bahwa komisi informasi ditempatkanlayaknya peradilan tingkat pertama karena hasil dari putusan dapat dimintakanbanding kepada PTUN, dalam proses di PTUN menggunakan hukum acaratersendiri yang menempatkan PTUN sebagai peradilan Banding. atas hasilpenelitian maka terdapat suatu paradigma baru dalam sistem peradilan diIndonesia. Gagasan yang diambil dari penelitian adalah denganmengkonsolidasikan sistem penyelesaian sengketa informasi publik dalamperadilan khusus dibawah PTUN, Konsep demikian digunakan agar dapatmengawal dan memperkuat sistem hukum dan peradilan di Indonesia.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis is a study that about to the concept of authorized institutionsthe process of judicial. Relevance between institutions referred to the Commissionof Information and Administrative Court is competent in the process of disputepublic resolution disclosure. Objectives rather than public disclosure is in order toguard the freedom of information as the philosophy of human rights in thirdgeneration. in this research, using the theory of Law, Nationalism Legal policy,Separation of Power Theory and Powers Fourth (De Vierde Macht), theconceptual framework used is the administrative court in the political perspectiveand freedom of information as a human rights.Results of the research showed that the commission of information likefirst instance courts as a result of the decision can be appealed to theAdministrative Court. process in the Administrative Court uses its own procedurallaw which puts the Administrative Court of Appeals. on the results of theresearch, there is a new paradigm in the justice system in Indonesia. The ideafrom research by consolidating system public information of dispute resolution ina special court under the Administrative Court. Thus, the concept is used in orderto initiate and strengthen the legal and judicial system in Indonesia.;This thesis is a study that about to the concept of authorized institutionsthe process of judicial. Relevance between institutions referred to the Commissionof Information and Administrative Court is competent in the process of disputepublic resolution disclosure. Objectives rather than public disclosure is in order toguard the freedom of information as the philosophy of human rights in thirdgeneration. in this research, using the theory of Law, Nationalism Legal policy,Separation of Power Theory and Powers Fourth (De Vierde Macht), theconceptual framework used is the administrative court in the political perspectiveand freedom of information as a human rights.Results of the research showed that the commission of information likefirst instance courts as a result of the decision can be appealed to theAdministrative Court. process in the Administrative Court uses its own procedurallaw which puts the Administrative Court of Appeals. on the results of theresearch, there is a new paradigm in the justice system in Indonesia. The ideafrom research by consolidating system public information of dispute resolution ina special court under the Administrative Court. Thus, the concept is used in orderto initiate and strengthen the legal and judicial system in Indonesia.;This thesis is a study that about to the concept of authorized institutionsthe process of judicial. Relevance between institutions referred to the Commissionof Information and Administrative Court is competent in the process of disputepublic resolution disclosure. Objectives rather than public disclosure is in order toguard the freedom of information as the philosophy of human rights in thirdgeneration. in this research, using the theory of Law, Nationalism Legal policy,Separation of Power Theory and Powers Fourth (De Vierde Macht), theconceptual framework used is the administrative court in the political perspectiveand freedom of information as a human rights.Results of the research showed that the commission of information likefirst instance courts as a result of the decision can be appealed to theAdministrative Court. process in the Administrative Court uses its own procedurallaw which puts the Administrative Court of Appeals. on the results of theresearch, there is a new paradigm in the justice system in Indonesia. The ideafrom research by consolidating system public information of dispute resolution ina special court under the Administrative Court. Thus, the concept is used in orderto initiate and strengthen the legal and judicial system in Indonesia., This thesis is a study that about to the concept of authorized institutionsthe process of judicial. Relevance between institutions referred to the Commissionof Information and Administrative Court is competent in the process of disputepublic resolution disclosure. Objectives rather than public disclosure is in order toguard the freedom of information as the philosophy of human rights in thirdgeneration. in this research, using the theory of Law, Nationalism Legal policy,Separation of Power Theory and Powers Fourth (De Vierde Macht), theconceptual framework used is the administrative court in the political perspectiveand freedom of information as a human rights.Results of the research showed that the commission of information likefirst instance courts as a result of the decision can be appealed to theAdministrative Court. process in the Administrative Court uses its own procedurallaw which puts the Administrative Court of Appeals. on the results of theresearch, there is a new paradigm in the justice system in Indonesia. The ideafrom research by consolidating system public information of dispute resolution ina special court under the Administrative Court. Thus, the concept is used in orderto initiate and strengthen the legal and judicial system in Indonesia.]"

"ABSTRAKDalam dimensi sejarah, perluasan kewenangan Peradilan Administrasi dilakukanoleh para hakim peradilan administrasi, sebagai bagian dari proses penemuanhukum (judicial activism) untuk mengisi keterbatasan-keterbatasan UU. No.5/1986 Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (atau UU. No. 51/2009 dalamperubahan terakhirnya). Namun, perluasan kewenangan absolut peradilanadministrasi melalui praktek peradilan berjalan diametral dengan politik hukumkebijakan legislasi. Dalam penelitian ditemukan disharmoni kebijakan politikhukum di bidang pengaturan eksistensi dan fungsi kompetensi absolut PeradilanAdministrasi, hal ini disebabkan karena tidak adanya grand design dari parapembuat kebijakan, khususnya di bidang legislasi, untuk membangun suatu sistemperadilan administrasi yang efektif, berwibawa dan kuat sesuai dengan cita negarahukum Indonesia. Kelemahan aturan hukum seringkali disikapi bukan denganmemperhatikan keselarasan sistem, namun menggunakan pendekatan-pendekatanreaktif, yakni berorientasi membuat aturan dan lembaga baru, untuk menatasistem hukum yang terganggu atau bermasalah. Dalam penelitian ini dibahas pulabeberapa rancangan undang-undang (RUU) yang secara langsung akanmempengaruhi fungsi peradilan administrasi ke depan, disamping menganalisissinkronisasi kebijakan legislasi dan regulasi dari lima undang-undang mutakhiryang memperluas/menegaskan kewenangan Peradilan Administrasi dalam sistemhukum nasional yaitu : 1) UU. Keterbukaan Informasi Publik; 2) UU. PelayananPublik; 3) UU. Pemilu Anggota DPR/D dan DPD; 4) UU. PengelolaanLingkungan Hidup; 5) UU. Pengadaan Tanah Untuk Kepentingan Umum. Padaakhirnya, Peneliti berkesimpulan bahwa politik hukum yang mengatur danmengelola sistem penyelesaian sengketa antara warga masyarakat atau badanhukum dengan pemerintah dalam kebijakan legislasi maupun regulasi harusdisusun dalam suatu grand design perubahan yang mencerminkan hakikatperlindungan hukum kepada masyarakat. Namun perlindungan hukum ini akanlebih bermakna apabila kompentensi peradilan administrasi tidak dibatasi olehketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud pasal 1 angka 9 UU PERATUN, maupunpembatasan-pembatasan hukum lainnya, namun mencakup semua tindakanhukum publik administrasi pemerintahan.

---

ABSTRACTIn historical dimension, the extension of the administrative courts jurisdiction isexercised by administrative judge as part of the judicial activism to strengthen theweakness of the Administrative Court Act no. 5/1986 (last revised on the Act no.51/2009). Unfortunately, the extension of the administrative court jurisdiction hasbeen diametrically opposed with the legal policy of legislation. The analysis willdemonstrate disharmony of the effectiveness legislation of judicial administrativecourt power, due to the lack of lawmakers grand design to build a effective andstrong judiciary system of administrative court based on the idea of Indonesianrule of law. The defective of the laws and regulations tends to be faced in reactiveapproach for building new regulation or institution. Realizing the lack of politicalwill of the lawmakers to build a effective and strong administrative court power,the reseacher propose some ideas and arguments to optimalize the power ofadministrative court by systematizing and re-thingking some actual legal issuesrelating the future of administrative court jurisdiction (ius constituendum).Relating to this topic, the researcher examine as well some of the draft bills whoseimpact to the future of the administrative court function, besides analyzing currentpolicies which has been expanding the administrative court jurisdiction in nationallaw system namely : 1) Freedom Information Act; 2) Public Service Act; 3)Legislative and Senate Election Act; 4) Enviromental Protection and ManagementAct; 5) Land Acquistition For Public Purposes Act. Finally, the researcher has aconclusion that legal policy which regulates and operates national legal system ofthe conflict resolution between the government and the citizen must be composedand designed based on a supporting grand design to promote and guarantee legalprotection for citizens. This protection would be more meaningful if thejurisdiction of the administrative court are not limited only to the specific criteriaof the administrave court decision according to article 1 figure law 9 Law No.51/2009, including another legal exemption, but also cover all the public legalaction of administrative authority."

"Warga masyarakat dalam pengajuan gugatan perkara perbuatan melawan hukum oleh Badan dan/atau Pejabat Pemerintahan (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad) sudah seharusnya memperhatikan karakteristik dan kompetensi absolut dari perkara Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad yang ingin digugat. Hal ini disebabkan ketepatan karakteristik dan tempat pengajuan gugatan perkara Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad menjadi salah satu syarat materil dan formil dalam mengajukan gugatan perkara Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad sehingga gugatan warga masyarakat diterima dan dapat dilanjutkan untuk diperiksa dalam proses persidangan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normative dan metode pendekatan kasus dengan peraturan perundang-undangan dan 7 putusan pengadilan perkara Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad yang menjadi bahan hukum primer. Hasil yang didapat dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa terhadap gugatan perkaraOnrechtmatige Overheidsdaad dengan berlakunya Perma Nomor 2 Tahun 2019 tidak serta merta hanya menjadi kewenangan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, tetapi dapat menjadi bagian dari kewenangan Pengadilan Negeri. Untuk mengetahui manakah perkara Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad yang menjadi kompetensi absolut Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dan Pengadilan Negeri maka Penggugat harus memperhatikan karakteristik dari perkara Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad yang ingin digugat.

---

Citizens filing lawsuits for unlawful acts by Government Agencies and/or Officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad) should already pay attention to the characteristics and absolute competence of the Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad case that they wish to sue. This is due to the accuracy of the characteristics and place of submission of the Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad lawsuit which is one of the material and formal requirements in filing an Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad lawsuit so that the community's claim is accepted and can be continued for examination in the trial process. The research method used is normative juridical and case approach methods with statutory regulations and 7 decisions of the Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad case court which are the primary legal material. The results obtained from this study are that the Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad lawsuit with the enactment of Perma Number 2 of 2019 does not necessarily only become the authority of the State Administrative Court, but can become part of the authority of the District Court. To find out which Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad cases are the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court and the District Court, the Plaintiff must pay attention to the characteristics of the Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad case that he wishes to sue."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai bagaimana pertimbangan hakim dalam menilaihal-hal dan/atau keadaan-keadaan yang memberatkan dan meringankan pidana,terkait penentuan berat ringannya pidana. Undang-undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2008tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman mewajibkan hakim untuk mempertimbangkansifat baik dan sifat jahat dari terdakwa dalam mempertimbangkan berat ringannyapidana. Namun hingga saat ini belum ada pengaturan yang jelas mengenaipedoman pemidanaan bagi hakim terkait hal-hal dan/atau keadaan-keadaan yangwajib dipertimbangkan dalam penentuan berat ringannya pidana tersebut.Pedoman pemidanaan ini sangat penting untuk mengurangi subjektifitas hakimdalam menilai hal-hal dan/atau keadaan yang meringankan dan memberatkanpidana, sehingga dapat mengurangi disparitas pemidanaan. Dalam skripsi jugadianalisa putusan hakim dalam perkara Adiguna Sutowo, terkait pertimbanganhakim dalam putusan ini terhadap adanya perdamaian diluar sidang pengadilansebagai alasan yang meringankan pidana.

---

ABSTRACTThe Focus of this study is concerning the consideration of Judge in assessingelaboration and/or any circumstance which could be a mitigation and anincrimination of punishment, that related to the decision of punishment. ActNumber 4 year 2008 concerning Indonesia Judicial Power stipulates the duties ofjudge to consider the behaviour of the accused to decide the final punishment.However, up until this moment, there is no lucid regulation concerning theguideline of punishment for judge in connection with such elaboration and/or anycircumstance that should be taken into account in deciding the punishment. Theguideline of punishment is utterly necessary to redeem the subjectivity of judge inassessing such elaboration and/or circumstance which could be a mitigation andan incrimination of punishment, and in the end it will defect the punishmentdisparity. This study also analyzes the judge verdict in case of Adiguna Sutowo,in which related to judge consideration about any non-litigation settlement as amitigation of punishment."