Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

The Establishing Paradigm of Dominus Litis Principle in Indonesian Administrative Justice Soehartono Soehartono; Kukuh Tejomurti; Arsyad Aldyan; Rachma Indriyani
Sriwijaya Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1, January 2021
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28946/slrev.Vol5.Iss1.877.pp42-55

Abstract

This study aimed to analyse a shifting paradigm of Dominus Litis (judge activeness) in the Indonesian state administrative justice. This principle emphasises that judges expand the paradigm that judges are not limited to being used in processes regulated in law. However, judges need to actively develop the paradigm to make legal discoveries oriented towards substantive justice and expand the paradigm from merely resolving disputes positivistically to resolving conflicts with paradigms. Legal realism and sociological jurisprudence to create substantive justice. This paper uses the normative research method, with a statutory approach and case approach by analysing two decisions of state administrative court judges. The result showed that Dominus Litis in the dispute's accomplishment is not limited to the implementation of juridical-legal positivism factors, but on how judges use their mindset to provide ideal decisions and conduct legal reasoning use socio-legal and socio-cultural paradigms. The development of demands for justice has also experienced a paradigm shift of justice. It requires the principle of an active judge who always follows developments in public policy, such as the principle of sustainable development related to environmental and natural resource issues, and finding the legal material truth.
EKSISTENSI ASAS-ASAS UMUM PEMERINTAHAN YANG BAIK SEBAGAI DASAR PENGUJIAN KEABSAHAN KEPUTUSAN TATA USAHA NEGARA DI PERADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA Soehartono Soehartono
Yustisia Vol 1, No 2: August 2012
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20961/yustisia.v1i2.10644

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe basis of legitimacy authentication on state administrative decision (berschikking) is that the state administrative decision is charged as in contradictory with the legislation prevailing and the general principles of good governance. Such the provision is governed in Article 53 clause (2) a,b, Act Number 9 of 2004 about PTUN, as the first amendment to the Act Number 5 of 1986 about PTUN. The existence of good governance general principles in the Act Number 5 of 1986 has not been confirmed as legal norm, but in the Act Number 9 of 2004, the general principles of good governance (AAUPB) have been confirmed in formal juridical way as the legal norm. In the presence of such the confirmation, various opinions raise, on the one hand, the presence of AAUPB confirmation restricts the judge’s movement, so that the existence of AAUPB remains to be ethics and is not necessary to be included into the Act. AAUPB is better growing and developing in non-written legal norm as code of ethics (Muchsan, in W. Riawan Tjandra, 2009:140). On the other hand, some people argues that AAUPB confirmed in formal juridical way as a legal norm is not a problem, because the judge in the society change and development is required to be more active, creative, future oriented and not handcuffed by normative rules as the legal positivism tenet prioritizing more the procedural justice. The judge may not be bound by the written convention only but should also explore the legal values and sense of justice living within the society as mandated by the jurisdictional law. The Judge interprets and constructs law to produces a verdict emphasizing on the justice the society expects.Abstrak                Dasar pengujian terhadap keabsahan keputusan tata usaha negara (beschikking) adalah bahwa keputusan tata usaha negara yang digugat bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik. Ketentuan tersebut diatur dalam Pasal 53 ayat (2) a,b, Undang-undang Nomor 9 Tahun 2004 tentang PTUN, sebagai perubahan pertama atas Undang-undang Nomot 5 Tahun 1986 tentang PTUN. Eksistensi asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik dalam Undang-undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1986, belum ditegaskan sebagai norma hukum, namun dalam Undang-undang Nomor 9 Tahun 2004, asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik (AAUPB) tersebut ditegaskan secara yuridis formal sebagai norma hukum. Dengan penegasan tersebut, timbul berbagai pendapat, di satu pihak dengan adanya penegasan AAUPB akan membatasi ruang gerak hakim, sehingga eksistensi AAUPB tetap sebagai etika dan tidak perlu dimasukan dalam undang-undang. AAUPB lebih baik tetap tumbuh dan berkembang dalam bentuk norma hukum tak tertulis sebagai code of ethics (Muchsan, dalam W. Riawan Tjandra, 2009 : 140). Di pihak lain berpendapat bahwa AAUPB yang secara yuridis formal ditegaskan sebagai norma hukum, bukan merupakan suatu permasalahan, karena hakim dalam perubahan dan perkembangan masyarakat dituntut untuk lebih aktif, kreatif, berpandangan ke depan dan tidak terbelenggu oleh aturan-aturan normatif sebagai ajaran positivisme hukum yang lebih mengedepankan keadilan prosedural. Hakim tak boleh terikat oleh undang-undang yang bersifat tertulis saja, tetapi harus menggali nilai-nilai hukum dan rasa keadilan yang hidup dalam masyarakat sebagaimana diamanatkan undang-undang kekuasaan kehakiman. Hakim dapat melakukan penafsiran dan konstruksi hukum untuk menghasilkan putusan yang mengedepankan keadilan yang diharapkan masyarakat.