Suchergebnisse

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. ; Undang-Undang No. 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum (UU Pemilu) mengatur bahwa Komisi Pemilihan Umum berwenang menetapkan peserta Pemilu Calon Anggota DPR Terpilih dan DPRD Kabupaten/Kota/Provinsi terpilih. Kemudian UU Pemilu juga mengatur bagaimana proses penyelesaian sengketa proses pemilu dan sengketa hasil pemilu. Namun dalam hal terjadi pembatalan atau perubahan penetapan peserta Pemilu Calon Anggota DPR Terpilih dan DPRD Kabupaten/Kota/Provinsi terpilih oleh KPU, maka jika terjadi sengketa tidak diatur proses penyelesaian sengketanya oleh UU Pemilu. Dengan demikian tulisan ini mencoba menjelaskan hal tersebut. Metode penulisan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif mengguankan pendekatan statutory Approach dan conceptual Approach. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa KPU berwenang menyelesaikan sengketa pembatalan atau perubahan penetapan peserta Pemilu Calon Anggota DPR Terpilih dan DPRD Kabupaten/Kota/Provinsi terpilih menurut Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan yakni melalui upaya administratif berupa keberatan meski pun UU Pemilu tidak mengaturnya, lalu dilanjutkan dengan banding kepada atasan instansi. Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara pun berwenang mengadili sengketa tersebut sebagai sengketa tata usaha negara umum sebagaimana diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan terkait hukum acara peradilan tata usaha negara.

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. ; Pencanangan Undang-Undang No 11 Tahun 2020 Tentang Cipta Kerja oleh Pemerintah Indonesia yang menggunakan model omnibus law menimbulkan polemik di masyarakat baik dari segi teori mau pun praktis. Model omnibus law mendobrak paradigma pembentukan undang-undang yang selama ini dikenal di Indonesia karena metodenya yang tidak lazim yakni mengatur banyak tema dalam satu undang-undang. Selain itu dari segi substansi terutama dalam tulisan ini mengenai hukum administrasi Negara banyak konsep-konsep yang dicampuradukkan sehingga banyak hal-hal yang sekiranya secara teori menyimpang jauh dari logika hukum administrasi Negara yang dianut di Indonesia. Di antaranya yang akan dibahas dalam tulisan ini ada empat permasalahan yakni: 1.) Konstitusionalitas Metode Omnibus Law dalam Undang-Undang No. 11 Tahun 2020 Tentang Cipta Kerja dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan, 2.) konsep kewenangan pemerintahan dalam konteks hubungan wewenang pemerintahan daerah dan pusat, 3.) konsep fiktif positif, serta 4.) konsep Standar sebagai bagian dari perizinan dalam arti luas. Tulisan ini menggunakan metode studi kepustakaan yakni melihat permasalahan berdasarkan literatur dan peraturan perundang-undangan yang terkait. Kesimpulan yang dapat diambil dalam tulisan ini adalah materi UU Cipta Kerja yang mengatur keempat hal tersebut masih banyak kekeliruan dan perlu ditinjau ulang oleh pembuat undang-undang, dan juga oleh Presiden RI.

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. ; Undang-Undang No. 12 Tahun 2012 Tentang Pendidikan Tinggi mengamanatkan agar Perguruan Tinggi wajib memiliki Organisasi Penyelenggara Perguruan Tinggi. Universitas Indonesia (UI) selaku Perguruan Tinggi Negeri yang berbadan hukum memiliki Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia (MWA UI) yang merupakan salah satu Organisasi Penyelenggara Perguruan Tinggi di UI. Salah satu unsur dalam MWA UI adalah MWA UI unsur mahasiswa (MWA UI UM) yang dipilih setahun sekali oleh seluruh mahasiswa UI secara demokratis, dan diangkat serta diberhentikan berdasarkan rekomendasi dari Senat Akademik UI kemudian ditetapkan melalui Keputusan Menteri (di bidang pendidikan tinggi). Akan tetapi kemudian selain menentukan tata cara pemilihan (calon) Anggota MWA UI UM, Organisasi Kemahasiswaan intra-kampus di UI juga menentukan mengenai mekanisme pemakzulannya. Apakah secara serta merta pemakzulan Anggota MWA UI UM oleh Organisasi Kemahasiswaan intra-kampus di UI berdampak hukum bagi status keanggotaan MWA UI UM di MWA UI? Kemudian bagaimana mekanisme pemberhentian tidak dengan hormat / pemakzulan bagi anggota MWA UI UM jika usul pemakzulan berasal dari organisasi kemahasiswaan intra-kampus di UI? Kedua hal inilah yang kemudian akan dibahas pada artikel ini. Metode yang digunakan dalam penulisan artikel ini adalah studi kepustakaan yakni mengenai kelembagaan mahasiswa UI, serta peraturan perundang-undangan yang terkait.

The enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration very much changes the paradigm of the proceedings in the State Administrative Court. One of the fundamental things is about administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. Under Article 75 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, citizens who feel disadvantaged by a Government's Decision or Action can file an administrative proceedings, and then file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court. Regarding this regulation, two interpretations arise regarding the obligation of administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. One party argues that the administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings must be carried out before filing a lawsuit in the Court, and the other argues this is not mandatory. For a period of four years, the interpretation of the obligation of administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration is floating in the realm of discourse. It was only on December 4th, 2018 that the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 6 of 2018 concerning Guidelines for Resolving Disputes Regarding Government Administration After Administrative Proceedings, finally the Supreme Court dictates that administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings is a must. However, the PERMA does not regulate fundamental things regarding lawsuit after administrative proceedings, namely, who will be seated as the defendant, and what is the object of the lawsuit. In addition, there are also a number of things that needed to be reviewed regarding the arrangements in the PERMA, such as regarding the deadline for a lawsuit in the Court.

Sejak diberlakukannya Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan, banyak terjadi perubahan paradigma di bidang Hukum Administrasi Pemerintahan, termasuk mengenai hukum acara dan kewenangan mengadili sengketa administrasi. Dahulu, Tindakan Administrasi yang berbentuk tidak tertulis (feitelijk handelingen) tidak dapat digugat kepada PTUN selaku peradilan administrasi. Kewenangan mengadili untuk Tindakan ini berada di Pengadilan Negeri dengan asumsi bahwa perbuatan tersebut adalah perbuatan melawan hukum layaknya PMH pada umumnya namun dilakukan oleh Penguasa, sehingga dikenal dengan sebutan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum oleh Pemerintah (Onrechtmatig Overheidsdaad). Namun kemudian dengan adanya Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan ini maka terjadi pergeseran kewenangan dari Peradilan Umum kepada Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, yang kemudian ditafsirkan pula oleh Mahkamah Agung melalui SEMA No. 4 Tahun 2016.Since the enactment of Law no. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, there are many paradigm shifts in the field of Administrative Law, including the procedure law and the authority to hear administrative disputes. In the past, unwritten (Factual) Deeds of the Government (feitelijk handelingen) could not be sued to the Administrative Court. The authority to hear and decide for this dispute was in the District Court with the assumption that the act is an Unlawful Act (PMH) in general but done by the Government, thus known as The Unlawful Acts by The Government (Onrechtmatig Overheidsdaad). But then with the existence of Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administrastion, there is a shift of authority from the District (General) Court (Pengadilan Negeri) to the State Administrative Court (PTUN), which was then interpreted also by the Supreme Court (MA) through SEMA No. 4 of 2016.