Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Constitutionale
Utama, Alif Wili
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Election Campaigns in Government Facilities, Places of Worship, and Education Units Utama, Alif Wili
Constitutionale Vol 5 No 1 (2024)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/constitutionale.v5i1.3338

Abstract

The use of educational institutions for campaign activities is prohibited. In the application reviewed in Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUU-XXI/2023, it was argued that the Explanation of Article 280, paragraph (1), letter h could lead to constitutional harm for plaintiffs, both as voters and candidates for the DKI Jakarta Provincial DPRD. This harm arises from legal uncertainty concerning the prohibition of campaigns in government facilities, places of worship, and educational institutions. The legal uncertainty stems from a contradiction between the Article and its Explanation (contradictio in terminis). While Article 280, paragraph (1), letter h explicitly prohibits campaigns in these locations without exception, the Explanation contradicts this by allowing campaigns if they are invited by the responsible party and conducted without campaign materials. This discrepancy between two provisions—despite the Explanation not being a normative rule but rather a formulation of norms—creates ambiguity in the legal framework. This study employs library and normative research methods, examining legal materials from sources such as laws, court decisions, books, journals, and articles. The goal is to develop concepts and ideas related to campaign prohibitions from a democratic election perspective, drawing from the aforementioned literature.
The Dynamics of the Elements of Abuse of Authority in the Authority of the Administrative Court After the Enactment of the Latest Job Creation Law Utama, Alif Wili
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 23 No. 1 (2024): Pena Justisia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v23i1.3918

Abstract

Abuse of authority as part of testing the discretionary authority of the State Administrative Court has changed with the presence of Law No. 6 of 2023 concerning Job Creation. Changes can be seen in Article 175 number 2 of the UUCK which expands discretion by eliminating the requirement that it is contrary to the law. However, Law No. 30 of 2014 also does not emphasize the definition of authority testing, thus creating problems, namely the blurring of the parameters of discretion testing by the State Administrative Court Judges. The author also conducts a comparative study with France to find trends in global solutions in solving problems. This research uses normative legal research methods that analyze applicable laws and regulations accompanied by literature studies in the form of books, journals, and other literature. The dynamics of the elements of Abuse of Authority from the UUAP to the birth of the existence of the UUCK has brought the consequences of a paradigmatic shift in the concept of discretion, which was originally limited to be freed because of the elimination of the requirement not to conflict with the provisions of the legislation. However, considering that discretion is actually only the (free) authority possessed by a State Administrative Officer to make a decision and/or take an action, the decision and/or action as a manifestation of the discretionary authority is still bound by the provisions of Article 52 of the UUAP regarding the legal requirements of a decision. The State Administrative Justice System in France and Indonesia has a difference that lies in the phrase used, in France using the term abuse of power, or what is called detournement de pouvoir. This reason is used if an official in issuing an administrative decision deliberately uses his/her authority for purposes that deviate from the original purpose/intention, in contrast to Indonesia which defines abuse of authority more complexly as a form of exceeding authority, mixing authority, and arbitrariness.
Co-Authors