Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
1.376
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pancasila: Jurnal Keindonesiaan Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Journal of Islamic Law Studies Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan
Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Humanities Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 8 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search
Journal : Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan

 1 
LAWSUIT IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON PERMA NO. 6 OF 2018 Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 8 No 3 (2019)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.8.3.2019.458-480

Abstract

The enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration very much changes the paradigm of the proceedings in the State Administrative Court. One of the fundamental things is about administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. Under Article 75 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, citizens who feel disadvantaged by a Government’s Decision or Action can file an administrative proceedings, and then file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court. Regarding this regulation, two interpretations arise regarding the obligation of administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. One party argues that the administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings must be carried out before filing a lawsuit in the Court, and the other argues this is not mandatory. For a period of four years, the interpretation of the obligation of administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration is floating in the realm of discourse. It was only on December 4th, 2018 that the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 6 of 2018 concerning Guidelines for Resolving Disputes Regarding Government Administration After Administrative Proceedings, finally the Supreme Court dictates that administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings is a must. However, the PERMA does not regulate fundamental things regarding lawsuit after administrative proceedings, namely, who will be seated as the defendant, and what is the object of the lawsuit. In addition, there are also a number of things that needed to be reviewed regarding the arrangements in the PERMA, such as regarding the deadline for a lawsuit in the Court.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE COURT OF LAW REGARDING COMPENSATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 10 No 2 (2021)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.10.2.2021.277-299

Abstract

Public Service is the embodiment of the main tasks of a governance. But in its implementation sometimes it also causes disputes due to losses experienced by community members due to a bad public service. Therefore Law No. 25 of 2009 concerning Public Services regulates dispute resolution in the implementation of public services. At least there are two types of ways to resolve compensation in public service dispute that caused by Tort in the Public Service, namely the Non-Litigation settlement through the Ombudsman, and the Litigation settlement through the Court. However, in further studies it was found that there was an overlap of authority between the Ombudsman and the Court in resolving public service disputes. This paper will try to discuss this in depth in terms of the philosophy of the existence of the Ombudsman, and its implications for its Special Adjudication authority. Aside from that, this paper will also discusses about the procedure of proceedings in the Administrative Court regarding public service disputes.
LEGAL EXPLANATION (RESTATEMENT) OF THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ACCORDING TO LAW NO. 30 OF 2014 CONCERNING GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 11 No 1 (2022)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.11.1.2022.64-92

Abstract

Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (UU AP) stipulates two types of Administrative Actions, namely Government Decrees and Government Administrative Actions. In judicial practice in the administrative courts, the term Government Administrative Action is often interpreted differently from the concept of Real Action. This study aims to determine the concept of Government Administrative Action according to Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration. The writing method used in this research is normative juridical method using statutory approach and conceptual approach. The results of the study show that the concept of "Government Administrative Action" in Article 1 point 8 of the UU AP can be interpreted grammatically, historically and systematically as Real Action as referred to in Article 87 letter a of the UU AP. The jurisdiction for administrative dispute where the objects are “real act” (government administrative action) and “written decision” (government decrees) lays on administrative court, where as for other legal acts which cannot be classified as real act (government administrative action) or written decision (government decrees) lays on the general court as residual jurisdiction (resrechter).
Co-Authors Raouf, Nadim