Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Hasil Pencarian

Ditemukan 2 dokumen yang sesuai dengan query
cover
Joseph Harry Krisnamurti
Abstrak :
Berlakunya Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan selain telah menjawab kebutuhan atas adanya suatu undang-undang yang mengatur tentang hukum materiil bagi Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara di Indonesia juga telah menimbulkan permasalahan tersendiri dalam pengaturannya. Hal ini karena Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan telah mengatur bahwa Badan Pemerintahan dapat ditetapkan sebagai pihak yang bertanggungjawab untuk mengembalikan kerugian negara, yang mana pengaturan tersebut justru bertentangan dengan pengertian dari kerugian negara itu sendiri sebagaimana diatur dalam Perundang-Undangan Bidang Keuangan Negara yang menempatkan negara sebagai pihak yang menderita kerugian dalam hal terjadinya kerugian negara. Penelitian ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif yang bertujuan untuk menguji kesesuaian antara norma-norma hukum yang belaku dalam Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan dengan Perundang-Undangan Bidang Keuangan Negara. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Badan Pemerintahan tidak dapat ditetapkan sebagai subyek hukum penanggung jawab atas terjadinya kerugian negara. Pengaturan tersebut cenderung tidak logis secara hukum karena mengatur bahwa Badan Pemerintahan sebagai wujud perwakilan dari negara itu sendiri dapat diminta untuk melakukan pengembalian atau pembayaran kerugian negara kepada dirinya sendiri. Dengan demikian untuk kedepannya perlu dilakukan perbaikan-perbaikan atas ketentuan yang berlaku dalam Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan agar sejalan dengan ketentuan-ketentuan yang telah berlaku sebelumnya dalam Perundang-Undangan Bidang Keuangan Negara.
The enactment of the Law of Government Administration in addition to having answered the need for the existence of a law regulating the material law for the State Administrative Court in Indonesia has also raised its own problems on its regulation. This is because the Law of Government Administration has provided that the Government Officials may be designated as the party responsible for returning the state losses, in which the arrangement contradicts with the meaning of state losses itself as stipulated in the Laws of State Finance which places the state as a party suffering losses in the event of a state losses. This research is compiled by using normative juridical research method which aims to test the conformity between legal norms that are applied in Law of Government Administration and Laws of State Finance. The results of this research indicate that the Government Officials can not be designated as the legal subject in charge of the state losses. This regulation is tend not to be legally logical because it provides that the Government Officials as a representative form of the state itself may be required to return or pay the state losses to the state itself. Therefore, for further, it is necessary to make revisions of the provisions applicable in the Law of Government Administration to be in line with the provisions that have been applied before in the Laws of State Finance.
Depok: Universitas Indonesia, 2018
T49801
UI - Tesis Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Joseph Harry Krisnamurti
Abstrak :
Abstrak
The passage Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration has raised its own problems due to its clauses regarding legal subjects that could be charged with reinstating state losses. This is due to the fact that such Law provides that government institutions can be determined as the party that is responsible for reinstating state loss that have occurred, which contradicts with the definition of state loss as stipulated in the applicable state finance laws that position the state as the party suffering the loss when a state loss is incurred. This research has been conducted using a normative legal research method which aims to test consistency between the legal norms applied in Law Number 30 of 2014 and the laws on state finance. Result of this research demonstrates that government institutions cannot be designated as the legal subject responsible for state losses. Such stipulation is not legally logical as it asserts that government institutions that are in fact representatives of the State may be required to return or pay the state losses to the state. Therefore there needs to be a revision to the relevant provisions of Law Number 30 of 2014 in order for such law to be in line with the provisions that presently govern state finance.
Jakarta: Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Direktorat Penelitian dan Pengembangan, 2019
340 JTKAKN 5:1 (2019)
Artikel Jurnal  Universitas Indonesia Library