Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.066
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Hukum Peratun Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan
Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Jayapura
Economics, Econometrics & Finance Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

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

Found 8 Documents
Search

 1 
PEMAKZULAN ANGGOTA MWA UI UNSUR MAHASISWA DARI PERSPEKTIF HUKUM ADMINISTRASI NEGARA Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Jurnal Hukum Peratun Vol 3 No 1 (2020)
Publisher : Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan bekerja sama dengan Ditjen Badimiltun

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/peratun.312020.51-70

Abstract

Law No. 12 of 2012 regarding Higher Education constitute that Higher Education Institution is required to have a Organizing Organization(s) of Higher Education. Universitas Indonesia (UI) as a State University which was regulated in Government Regulation No. 68 of 2013 regarding the Statute of the University of Indonesia (Statute of UI) has a Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia (MWA UI) which is one of the Organizing Organizations of Higher Education in UI. One element in the MWA UI is the student representative element (MWA UI UM) which is elected once a year by all UI students in a democratic way, and is appointed and discharged based on recommendations from the Academic Senate of the University of Indonesia which is then determined through a Ministerial Decision (Ministry of education). But then the Intra-Campus Student Organizations in UI regulate the impeachment mechanism of MWA UI UM beside the election. Does the impeachment of the MWA UI UM by the Intra-Campus Student Organization of UI have a legal impact on the status of the MWA UI UM membership at the MWA UI? Then how is the mechanism of impeachment / dishonorably discharged for members of the MWA UI UM if the proposal for impeachment comes from Student Organizations in UI? These two questions will be discussed in this article. The method used in this paper is literature study about student organizations of UI, and related laws and regulations.
PEMBARUAN UNDANG-UNDANG PERADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA PASCA-REFORMASI DI ERA PERADILAN ELEKTRONIK Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Jurnal Hukum Peratun Vol 3 No 2 (2020)
Publisher : Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan bekerja sama dengan Ditjen Badimiltun

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/peratun.322020.111-126

Abstract

In the past decade there has been a massive reform in the Indonesian judiciary system, especially regarding State Administrative Court. As from the enactment of Law No. 14 of 2008 concerning Openness of Public Information, until the enactment of Law No. 9 of 2018 concerning Non-Tax State Revenues opened a tap that expands the competence/authority of the State Administrative Court so that not only the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding that of individual-concrete administrative decision (beschikking) but also the authority to adjudicate all types of administrative decisions as long as they are not statutory regulations, and also to adjudicate disputes regarding administrative factual-deed. Morover, within the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019 also opened a new paradigm about Electronic Litigation. This paper will discuss the urgency of renewing the State Administrative Court Law in terms of expanding absolute competence, the implementation of Electronic Litigation, and also about synchronization with other laws and regulations. The method used in this paper is library research that is research that takes resources from relevant literature. In this paper it can be concluded that it is deemed necessary to reform the substance in the obsolete State Administrative Court Law.
BEBERAPA KESALAHAN KONSEPTUAL PADA UU CIPTA KERJA MENURUT ILMU HUKUM ADMINISTRASI NEGARA Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Jurnal Hukum Peratun Vol 4 No 1 (2021)
Publisher : Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan bekerja sama dengan Ditjen Badimiltun

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/peratun.412021.45-66

Abstract

The promulgation of Law Number 11 Year 2020 Regarding Job Creation Bill by the Indonesian Government that uses the omnibus law model has caused polemics both theoretically and pragmatically. The omnibus law model breaks through the paradigm of law-making that has been known in Indonesia for of its unusual method of regulating many themes in one single bill. In terms of substance, especially in this paper concerning administrative law, many concepts are mixed up so that many things which in theory stray far from the science of State administrative law adopted in Indonesia. Among those that will be discussed in this paper are four problems namely 1.) The constitutionality of omnibus law method in the Law No. 11 of 2020 regarding Job Creation, 2.) The concept of governmental authority in the context of regional and central government relations, 3.) The Tacit Authorization concept, and 4.) The concept of licensing in the broader sense. This paper uses the literature study method, in which the writer observes the problems based on related literatures and regulations. The conclusion that can be drawn in this paper is that this law which regulates those four problems is still had a lot of mistakes and needs to be reviewed by the legislators or by President of the Republic of Indonesia.
PERMASALAHAN ASPEK FORMIL PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PEMBATALAN PENETAPAN CALON ANGGOTA DPR DAN DPRD KABUPATEN/KOTA/PROVINSI TERPILIH Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Jurnal Hukum Peratun Vol 4 No 2 (2021)
Publisher : Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan bekerja sama dengan Ditjen Badimiltun

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/peratun.422021.105-122

Abstract

Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (General Elections Act) stipulates that the General Election Commission (KPU) has the authority to determine the elected participants in the Election of Candidates of members of the House of Representative and/or the Regency/City/Provincial House of Representative. The General Elections Act also regulates how the process of resolving disputes over the election process and disputes over election results. However, in the event of cancellation or change in the Decision regarding the elected Candidates of members of the House of Representative and/or the Regency/City/Provincial House of Representative by KPU, in the event of a dispute, General Election Act doesn't regulate the dispute resolution process. Thus, this paper tries to explain this problem. The writing method used in this research is a legal-normative approach using statutory approach and conceptual approach. The results of the study indicate that KPU has the authority to resolve disputes over the cancellation or change in the Decision regarding the elected Candidates of members of the House of Representative and/or the Regency/City/Provincial House of Representative according to Law no. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, namely through administrative proceedings in the form of administrative objection even though the General Election Act doesn't regulate it, then proceed to an administrative appeal to the KPU's superior. The Administrative Court is also authorized to adjudicate the dispute as an administrative dispute as regulated in the laws and regulations related to the procedural law of the administrative court.
WACANA PERADILAN ELEKTRONIK DALAM PROSES EKSEKUSI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN DI LINGKUNGAN PERADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Jurnal Hukum Peratun Vol 5 No 1 (2022)
Publisher : Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan bekerja sama dengan Ditjen Badimiltun

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/peratun.512022.19-38

Abstract

In the past, the litigation process in court was carried out manually from registration of cases to the reading of court’ decision. With the promulgation of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019 concerning the Administration of Cases and Hearing in Electronic Courts (PERMA No. 1 of 2019), the paradigm regarding judiciary process has shifted towards electronic justice. In the sense that from registration of cases, the adjudication stage (trial in court) and the reading of court decisions is carried out electronically with the e-court application. However, this regulation did not reach the post-adjudication administrative process, at the stage of execution of the decision. For this reason, this paper was made to look at the potential for the implementation of administration of the execution of court decisions, especially in the administrative court, through the hierarchical execution process using the e-court application. The results of the study indicate that the administrative process of the execution of administrative court decisions can be carried out through the e-court application by changing the e-litigation paradigm, namely the change in PERMA no. 1 of 2019. The e-litigation paradigm in this regulation must also be expanded into e-judiciary (holistic electronic judiciary) so that the execution stage can be carried out electronically.
LEGAL EXPLANATION (RESTATEMENT) OF THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ACCORDING TO LAW NO. 30 OF 2014 CONCERNING GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
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).
WACANA PEMBERIAN KEWENANGAN FIAT EKSEKUSI KEPADA PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA ATAS HASIL PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA ADMINISTRASI PEMERINTAHAN DI LUAR PENGADILAN Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Jurnal Hukum Peratun Vol 5 No 2 (2022)
Publisher : Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan bekerja sama dengan Ditjen Badimiltun

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/peratun.522022.175-206

Abstract

The existence of institutions outside the state administrative courts that have the authority to resolve government administrative disputes has in recent years caused several problems. Among them are regarding the implementation or execution of the results of dispute resolution which mechanism is not clear. Finally, some parties tried to evade law (Fraude la lois) on the process of implementing the results of the settlement of administrative disputes outside the court, for example by filing a lawsuit regarding government's real act in the administrative court, when in fact the object of the dispute was not a real act. This kind of legal evading practice, if left unchecked, can disrupt the legal system of administration, including the procedural law of the administrative court, so it must be accommodated in formal administrative law (procedural law) appropriately. Because in fact, if it is not properly regulated in formal law, this will become a continuous polemic. One of the solutions offered in this paper is to add the authority of the administrative court as the giver of fiat execution for the implementation of the results of the settlement of administrative disputes that have been settled out of court based on statutory regulations. Among them are the fiat execution of the results of administrative proceedings, the implementation of the Ombudsman's recommendations and the implementation of the Ombudsman's decision.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE COURT OF LAW REGARDING COMPENSATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
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.
Co-Authors