<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the legal-political aspects of policy regulation testing in achieving substantive justice. It focuses on the analysis of: (a) standards and parameters related to policy regulation testing based on discretionary powers, and (b) legal-political aspects concerning policy regulation testing based on substantive justice. This research adopts a legal doctrinal approach emphasizing conceptual and legislative frameworks. The findings assert three standards and parameters for policy regulation testing: firstly, fundamental standards and parameters referring to Administrative Law of Procedure (AUPB). In this aspect, AUPB needs to be linked to societal harms to serve as a benchmark for policy regulation. Secondly, standards and parameters for policy regulation testing should align with the concept of PMH in civil law, requiring that the tested policy regulation directly impacts societal losses. Thirdly, standards and parameters for policy regulation testing should consider authority, substance, and procedure aspects, ensuring regulations are made by competent authorities, with appropriate substance, and adhering to specific procedures. The legal-political dimension of policy regulation testing based on substantive justice necessitates the revision of the 2019 Supreme Court Regulation on PMH to provide specific regulations regarding policy regulation testing, including clarification on standards and parameters. The revision aims to enhance the effectiveness of policy regulation testing as part of the government's Tortious Acts testing, thereby facilitating procedural processes and efforts to promote substantive justice.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
