Articles
<![CDATA[REVIEW OF INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NUMBER 135/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 ]]>
<![CDATA[Putri Aprilia Anggraini]]>;
<![CDATA[Anna Erliyana]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Law and Policy Transformation Vol 7 No 2 (2022) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Internasional Batam ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.37253/jlpt.v7i2.6761
<![CDATA[The determination of the elected Regent and Deputy Regent by the General Election Commission (KPU) of Sabu Raijua Regency was formed without paying attention to the provisions of the Legislation and General Principles of Good Governance. The reason is that Orient Riwu Kore was only known to have dual citizenship after issuing the KPU Decree. The Constitutional Court later annulled the KPU decree. In contrast, Article 24C of the Constitution mandates that the MK's authority decide disputes regarding the general election results. On the other hand, the KPU stipulation decree is related to the general election process, not a dispute over the vote results. The dispute resolution process should be done through administrative efforts to the BAWASLU and the PTUN. Therefore, it becomes a question regarding the basis of the authority and reasons for the Constitutional Court to resolve disputes over the general election process. This research is in the form of normative juridical. The approach used in this research is the statutory approach and the case approach. This research is categorized in a prescriptive research typology. The data that has been collected will be analyzed qualitatively, and the results of this study are categorized in the form of prescriptive-analytical research. The result of this research show if the dispute of the KPU decree should be solved by administrative efforts in the form of adjudication to Bawaslu. Only then can the PTUN lawsuit be filed. However, suppose the dispute resolution process is carried out through the Administrative Court, it will take a long time. So that it can be understood that the acceptance of the applicant's application by the Constitutional Court is due to the absence of a more effective mechanism that can be carried out for the determination of the KPU decree other than through the Constitutional Court. Keywords: election disputes; constitutional court decision; decrees; general election commissions.]]>
<![CDATA[Discretionary Authority of Government Officials After Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation in the Perspective of Government Administration: (Case Study of Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020): Kewenangan Diskresi Pejabat Pemerintah Pasca Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 Tentang Cipta Kerja Dalam Perspektif Administrasi Pemerintahan: Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 ]]>
<![CDATA[Samuel Ivander Aritonang]]>;
<![CDATA[Anna Erliyana]]>
<![CDATA[ Santhet: (Jurnal Sejarah, Pendidikan Dan Humaniora) Vol 7 No 1 (2023): Santhet : Jurnal Sejarah, Pendidikan, dan Humaniora ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Proram studi pendidikan Sejarah Fakultas Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universaitas PGRI Banyuwangi ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.36526/santhet.v7i2.1881
<![CDATA[Discretion is a necessity for official governemt to execute public administration. The government will scarcely operate and may cause public service disfunction without a discretionary authority. The discretionary rules is stipulated in Law Number 30 year 2014 concerining The Administration of Government. This Law regulates that discretionary authority have limitations, i.e. prohibition to have any breach to the laws, in order to avoid arbitrariness by the official governemnt. However, Law Number 11 year 2020 concerning Job Creation has annulled such prohibition. The purpose of this research is to review discretionary authority according to Job Creation Law including the implementation the decision of Constitutional Court number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. The method used herein is normative research which resulted that the execution of discretionary authority by the government upon the issuance of Constitutional Court’s decision have breached the laws and its legal system. The Government did not execute the Constitunal Court’s decision by issuing delegated legislations as well as emergency regulation on Job Creation.]]>
<![CDATA[Perbandingan Pengaturan Permohonan Fiktif Positif Pada Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia Dan Belanda ]]>
<![CDATA[Siti Rahmaniah Jamaluddin]]>;
<![CDATA[Anna Erliyana]]>
<![CDATA[ Syntax Literate Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Syntax Corporation ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
Full PDF (332.024 KB)
|
DOI: 10.36418/syntax-literate.v7i11.10012
<![CDATA[Fiktif positif merupakan suatu konsep keadaan sikap diam atau pengabaian badan/pejabat pemerintahan yang dalam hitungan waktu tertentu tidak menerbitkan keputusan dan/atau tindakan yang merupakan kewajibannya. Sehingga, badan/ pejabat pemerintahan tersebut dianggap telah mengabulkan permohonan yang diajukan. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis dua permasalahan utama, pertama mengenai pengaturan permohonan fiktif positif pada Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia berdasarkan Undang-undang Administrasi Pemerintahan dan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 8 Tahun 2017, kedua mengenai pengaturan permohonan fiktif positif pada Peradilan tata Usaha Negara Belanda berdasarkan General Administrative Law Act (GALA). Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan komparatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan pengaturan permohonan fiktif positif pada Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia dan Belanda mengenai objek permohonan fiktif positif, tenggat waktu pengajuan permohonan, pemeriksaan dan pembuktian serta upaya hukum terhadap keputusan fiktif positif.]]>
<![CDATA[The existence of policy regulations and the court's authority to review policy regulations (beleidsregel) ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Ali Hasan]]>;
<![CDATA[Anna Erliyana]]>
<![CDATA[ The International Journal of Politics and Sociology Research Vol. 11 No. 2 (2023): September: Law, Politic and Sosiology ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Trigin Publisher ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[Policy regulation (beleidsregel) is a legal product that is based on the expertise/discretion of the government in making policies because of the law. Policy regulations are outlined in various forms, including in the form of circulars, guidelines, announcements, decrees that are general and abstract in nature and even in the form of regulations which are referred to as pseudo regulations (pseudo legislation). Legal developments then gave birth to policy regulations that were formed based on the mandate of statutory regulations. In a rule-of-law state, every policy that binds society must be subject to review in court, including policy regulations, which then creates differences of opinion about who has the authority to implement policy regulations, bearing in mind that until now there are no laws and regulations that regulate rigidly regarding the formation policy regulations and their testing mechanisms.]]>
<![CDATA[Status Direksi BUMN selaku Penyelenggara Negara Lainnya dalam ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan Pasal 87 ]]>
<![CDATA[Wahyu Ardiansyah]]>;
<![CDATA[Anna Erliyana]]>
<![CDATA[ Transparansi Hukum Vol. 5 No. 1 (2022): TRANSPARANSI HUKUM ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Fakultas Hukum Universitas Kadiri ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.30737/transparansi.v5i1.2266
<![CDATA[Abstrak Direksi Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) berdasarkan pengaturan Pasal 87 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Negara dengan memperhatikan konstruksi Undang-Undang lain terkait seperti Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 1999 tentang Penyelenggara Negara yang Bersih dan Bebas dari Korupsi, Kolusi dan Nepotisme dan Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1986 tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, memiliki kedudukan sebagai Pejabat Pemerintahan dengan berbagai konsekuensi turunan selayaknya jabatan pemerintahan lain yang harus patuh pada berbagai ketentuan yang lebih kaku. Sementara dalam ketentuan Pasal 91 UU BUMN, Direksi BUMN dituntut memiliki kemandirian dalam menjalankan tugasnya dan lebih otonom dalam melakukan pengelolaan BUMN yang dituntut fleksibel sesuai dengan ciri badan hukum privat. Melalui penelitian yuridis normatif bertipologi evaluatif dan metode analisis kualitatif, penelitian ini membahas bagaimana konsepsi hukum yang seharusnya atas status kedudukan Direksi Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Studi ini menemukan bahwa konstruksi pengaturan status hukum Direksi BUMN menempatkan Direksi BUMN pada dua posisi sekaligus antara statusnya sebagai Penyelenggara Negara disisi lain sebagi Pimpinan dari Badan Hukum Privat. Meskipun sebagai badan hukum privat, status sebagai penyelenggara negara tidak dapat dilepaskan mengingat kedudukan BUMN merupakan kepanjangan tangan pemerintah dalam pelaksanaan tugas pelayanan umum selain permodalannya yang sebagian/keseluruhannya berasal dari negara. Kata Kunci: Status Hukum, Direksi BUMN, Penyelenggara Negara]]>
<![CDATA[TRANSISI DEMOKRASI DAN PEMENUHAN HAM DALAM PERWUJUDAN SISTEM KESEHATAN NASIONAL (STUDI BANDING INDONESIA DAN KUBA) ]]>
<![CDATA[Indra Wahyu Bintoro]]>;
<![CDATA[Anna Erliyana]]>
<![CDATA[ JURNAL DARMA AGUNG Vol 31 No 5 (2023): OKTOBER ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Universitas Darma Agung (LPPM_UDA) ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.46930/ojsuda.v31i5.3736
<![CDATA[Salah satu tujuan negara adalah untuk melindungi masyarakat termasuk memastikan kesejahteraan tercapai secara merata dan berkeadilan. Tingkat pembangunan juga harus didukung dengan pelayanan kesehatan sebagai pelayanan publik dasar untuk mewujudkan sumber daya manusia yang dapat menopang pembangunan dan kemajuan suatu negara. Pelayanan kesehatan menjadi isu demokrasi dan juga hukum serta erat kaitannya dengan Hak Asasi Manusia, sehingga diatur dalam konstitusi serta memastikan perlindungan masyarakat yang dilakukan oleh negara. Penyelenggaran pelayanan publik adalah pelaksanaan kewenangan serta menjadi ruang lingkup hukum administrasi negara. Pelayanan kesehatan di Indonesia dan Kuba yang memiliki kesamaan dalam perwujudan transisi demokrasi serta upaya pemenuhan hak kesehatan bagi masyarakatnya. Hal tersebut akan disajikan dalam penelitian perbandingan hukum administrasi negara dengan metode penulisan analisis normatif dengan menggunakan teori hukum progresif. Dengan demikian akan didapatkan informasi dan analisis yang ilmiah yang menunjukan keunggulan dan kelemahan penyelenggaraan kesehatan di Indonesia dan Kuba sehingga dapat dipergunakan dalam pembaharuan hukum dan pemenuhan terhadap HAM sebagai bentuk penghormatan terhadap demokrasi dan supremasi hukum.]]>
<![CDATA[Kompetensi Mengadili Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Terhadap Gugatan Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum Oleh Badan Dan/Atau Pejabat Pemerintahan (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad) ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Alifian Geraldi Fauzi]]>;
<![CDATA[Anna Erliyana]]>
<![CDATA[ UNES Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 (2023): UNES LAW REVIEW (Desember 2023) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[LPPM Universitas Ekasakti Padang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1273
<![CDATA[The competence to adjudicate the PTUN was previously very narrow, only having the authority to adjudicate state administrative decisions (beschikking) in the concrete, individual, and final sense as regulated in the PTUN Law. However, since the enactment of the UUAP, there has been a reverse flow of legislative policy which has led to the expansion and confirmation of the PTUN's authority in adjudicating government administration disputes. Implementation of the expansion of authority regarding the authority to adjudicate claims against unlawful acts by government bodies and/or officials. The broad implication of the competency to adjudicate state administration trade after the enactment of the UUAP is the transfer of competence to adjudicate against unlawful acts by government bodies and/or officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad/OOD) from the District Court to competence to adjudicate the State Administrative Court and the tangential point regarding the authority to adjudicate between the two courts, namely the District Court and the State Administrative Court, the Supreme Court as the highest holder of judicial authority has regulated this by issuing a PERMA which is Lex Specialist to regulate this matter. Based on Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 2 of 2019 concerning Settlement Guidelines regulating Government Actions and the Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Acts by Government Agencies and/or Officials (Onrechmatige Overheidsdaad) they are supposed to adjudicate actions against legal violations by government agencies and/or officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad). ) is fully competent to adjudicate at the State Administrative Court. However, regarding small claims for compensation at the State Administrative Court, members of the public can still submit claims for compensation through the District Court.]]>
<![CDATA[PERGESERAN KOMPETENSI ABSOLUT DARI PERADILAN UMUM KE PERADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA: GUGATAN PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM OLEH PENGUASA (ONRECHTMATIGE OVERHEIDSDAAD) ]]>
<![CDATA[Barokah, Muhamad Raziv]]>;
<![CDATA[Erliyana, Anna]]>
<![CDATA[ Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[UI Scholars Hub ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[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]]>
<![CDATA[POLEMIK JANGKA WAKTU PENGAJUAN GUGATAN KE PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA ]]>
<![CDATA[Marvin, Renius Albert]]>;
<![CDATA[Erliyana, Anna, Prof.]]>
<![CDATA[ Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[UI Scholars Hub ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[The period of 90 (ninety) days to file a claim in the Administrative Court (PTUN) plays an important role because if the period is passed, the Administrative Decision (KTUN) can not be claimed even if the KTUN contains defects. The basic principle of regulation the period for filing a claim to the Administrative Court is determined explicitly in Article 55 of the Law of Administrative Courts, which is 90 (ninety) days after the KTUN is received or announced which can be applied in several variables that prove the opportunity for everyone can take legal action if the Administrative Decision issued has violated the laws and regulations and the principles of good governance. However, the time limit for filing a claim to the Administrative Court is also felt to have hurt the sense of justice and limits human rights to defend their legal rights and interests.]]>
<![CDATA[KONSEP PELAKSANAAN KEPUTUSAN TATA USAHA NEGARA: MENGUJI ASAS PRESUMTIO IUSTAE CAUSA DALAM SENGKETA TATA USAHA NEGARA ]]>
<![CDATA[Sukri, Indah Fitriani]]>;
<![CDATA[Erliyana, Anna]]>
<![CDATA[ Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[UI Scholars Hub ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[In the implementation of the State Administration Decree (KTUN), the principle of presumtiousta causa is known as part of the implementation of the KTUN in order to resolve state administrative disputes. This principle means a state administration decision which is always considered valid. This decision will be invalid if there are new decisions that cancel or revoke the previous decisions. In its formation, the administrative court or state administration court has the objective to provide protection for the rights of the people derived from individual rights as well as to protect the rights of the community based on the common interests of individuals in the community. The government has an obligation to advance the general welfare stated in the constitutional mandate. In carrying out this decision, the government carries out administrative and enforcement law.]]>
