Main Article Content
Abstract
This study describes and analyzes the urgency of harmonizing the exclusive authority of State Administrative Court as stipulated in the State Administrative Court Law and Non-State Administrative Court Law, and how to do this harmonization in relation to the implementation of legality principles, the theory of hierarchical regulations, and laws on the establishment of laws and regulations. As normative research using statutory and conceptual approaches, this research used a descriptive qualitative analytical method. It is expected that the results of this research can contribute to the development of Constitutional law and State Administrative Law, as well as to contribute ideas to policymakers in making and formulating various regulations related to appropriate methods to overcome disharmony in regulating the exclusive authority of the State Administrative Court to ensure that the law issued on the exclusive authority of the State Administrative Court meets society’s needs for good laws and regulations. This study concluded the following points: first, it is necessary to harmonize the State Administrative Court Law and laws other than State Administrative Court on the exclusive authority of the State Administrative Court to avoid any overlap to ensure harmonization of the laws. Secondly, the usual drafting method is more appropriate than the omnibus method because we only need to amend the State Administrative Court Law, while the other laws remain unamended.
Keywords: harmonization, exclusive administrative court authority, state administrative court law
Harmonisasi Undang-Undang Peratun Dan Undang-undang Lainnya Mengenai Kewenangan Eksklusif Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara
Abstrak
Kajian ini mendeskripsikan dan menganalisis urgensi harmonisasi kewenangan eksklusif PTUN sebagaimana diatur dalam UU PTUN dan UU PTUN, serta bagaimana harmonisasi tersebut dalam kaitannya dengan penerapan asas legalitas, teori peraturan hirarkis, dan undang-undang tentang pembentukan undang-undang dan peraturan. Sebagai penelitian normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual, penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif analitis kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan kontribusi bagi perkembangan hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Tata Negara, serta dapat memberikan sumbangsih pemikiran kepada pembuat kebijakan dalam membuat dan merumuskan berbagai peraturan terkait dengan cara yang tepat untuk mengatasi disharmoni dalam mengatur kewenangan eksklusif DPR. Peratun untuk memastikan bahwa undang-undang yang dikeluarkan atas kewenangan eksklusif Peratun memenuhi kebutuhan masyarakat akan peraturan perundang-undangan yang baik. Kajian ini menyimpulkan beberapa hal sebagai berikut: pertama, diperlukan harmonisasi UU Peratun dengan undang-undang selain Peratun yang menjadi kewenangan eksklusif PTUN agar tidak terjadi tumpang tindih untuk menjamin harmonisasi undang-undang. Kedua, metode penyusunan biasa lebih tepat daripada metode omnibus karena kita hanya perlu mengubah UU Peratun, sedangkan undang-undang lainnya tetap tidak berubah.
Kata Kunci: harmonisasi, kewenangan PTUN eksklusif, hukum PTUN
Keywords
Article Details
References
- Constitution.
- Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court.
- Law No. 9 of 2004 on Amendments to Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court.
- Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure.
- Law No. 51 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court.
- Law No. 12 of 2011 on Formation of Legislation.
- Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration.
- Law No. 2 of 2012 on Land Acquisition for Public Utilities Construction.
- Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections.
- Law No. 15 of 2019 on Amendments to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Formation of Legislation.
- Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation.
- Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation.
- Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 20 of 2015 on Procedures and Procedures for Harmonization, Unification and Stabilization of the Conception of Draft Legislation.
- Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 40 of 2016 on Amendments to the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 20 of 2015 concerning Procedures and Procedures for Harmonization, Unification and Stabilization of the Conception of Draft Legislation.
- Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2015 on Assessment of Elements of Abuse of Authority.
- Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2011 on Procedures for Settlement of Public Information Disputes.
- Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2016 on Location Determination Disputes.
- Supreme Court Regulation No. 5 of 2017 on Electoral disputes.
- Supreme Court Regulation No. 8 of 2017 on Positive Fictitious Applications.
- Supreme Court Regulation No. 6 of 2018 on Administrative Efforts.
- Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2019 on Disputes on Government Actions.
- Supreme Court Circular No. 5 of 2021 on Enforcement of the Formulation of the Results of the 2021 Supreme Court Chamber Plenary Meeting as a Guideline for the Implementation of Duties for the Court.
- Marzuki PM, Penelitian Hukum (Prenada media Group 2019).
- Marbun SF, Peradilan Administrasi Negara dan Upaya Administratif di Indonesia (UII Press 2003).
- Purbacaraka P and Soekanto S, Perundang-undangan dan Yurisprudensi (PT. Citra Aditya Bakti) 1993.
- Rahardjo S, Ilmu Hukum (PT. Citra Aditya Bakti 2012).
- Simanjuntak E, Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Transformasi dan Refleksi (Sinar Grafika 2018).
- Fitryantica A, ‘Harmonisasi Peraturan Perundang-undangan Indonesia Melalui Konsep Omnibus Law’ (2019) 6 Gema Keadilan 3.
- Putriyanti A, ‘Kajian Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan dalam Kaitan dengan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara’ (2015) 10 Jurnal Pandecta 2.
- Riza D, ‘Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara Menurut Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Dan Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan’, (2018) 3 Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum 1.
- Saraswati R, ‘Perkembangan Pengaturan Sumber Hukum dan Tata Urutan Pearturan Perundang-undanagn di Indonesia’, (2009) 9 Media Hukum 2.
- Wicaksono DA, ‘Implikasi Re-Eksistensi Tap MPR dalam Hierarki Peraturan Perundang-undangan terhadap Jaminan atas Kepastian Hukum yang Adil di Indonesai’ (2013) 10 Jurnal Konstitusi 1.
References
Constitution.
Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court.
Law No. 9 of 2004 on Amendments to Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court.
Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure.
Law No. 51 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court.
Law No. 12 of 2011 on Formation of Legislation.
Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration.
Law No. 2 of 2012 on Land Acquisition for Public Utilities Construction.
Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections.
Law No. 15 of 2019 on Amendments to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Formation of Legislation.
Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation.
Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation.
Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 20 of 2015 on Procedures and Procedures for Harmonization, Unification and Stabilization of the Conception of Draft Legislation.
Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 40 of 2016 on Amendments to the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 20 of 2015 concerning Procedures and Procedures for Harmonization, Unification and Stabilization of the Conception of Draft Legislation.
Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2015 on Assessment of Elements of Abuse of Authority.
Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2011 on Procedures for Settlement of Public Information Disputes.
Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2016 on Location Determination Disputes.
Supreme Court Regulation No. 5 of 2017 on Electoral disputes.
Supreme Court Regulation No. 8 of 2017 on Positive Fictitious Applications.
Supreme Court Regulation No. 6 of 2018 on Administrative Efforts.
Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2019 on Disputes on Government Actions.
Supreme Court Circular No. 5 of 2021 on Enforcement of the Formulation of the Results of the 2021 Supreme Court Chamber Plenary Meeting as a Guideline for the Implementation of Duties for the Court.
Marzuki PM, Penelitian Hukum (Prenada media Group 2019).
Marbun SF, Peradilan Administrasi Negara dan Upaya Administratif di Indonesia (UII Press 2003).
Purbacaraka P and Soekanto S, Perundang-undangan dan Yurisprudensi (PT. Citra Aditya Bakti) 1993.
Rahardjo S, Ilmu Hukum (PT. Citra Aditya Bakti 2012).
Simanjuntak E, Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Transformasi dan Refleksi (Sinar Grafika 2018).
Fitryantica A, ‘Harmonisasi Peraturan Perundang-undangan Indonesia Melalui Konsep Omnibus Law’ (2019) 6 Gema Keadilan 3.
Putriyanti A, ‘Kajian Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan dalam Kaitan dengan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara’ (2015) 10 Jurnal Pandecta 2.
Riza D, ‘Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara Menurut Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Dan Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan’, (2018) 3 Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum 1.
Saraswati R, ‘Perkembangan Pengaturan Sumber Hukum dan Tata Urutan Pearturan Perundang-undanagn di Indonesia’, (2009) 9 Media Hukum 2.
Wicaksono DA, ‘Implikasi Re-Eksistensi Tap MPR dalam Hierarki Peraturan Perundang-undangan terhadap Jaminan atas Kepastian Hukum yang Adil di Indonesai’ (2013) 10 Jurnal Konstitusi 1.