This article aims to prove that the interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an by using a rational approach to the political vision has a tendency to release an understanding of the text from its real context. This often makes an interpretation of these verses that are interpreted to justify and legalize the ideology that is being held. Based on the study of the works of supporters and leaders of the Negara Islam Indonesia (NII), this study proves that their interpretation is so far detached from the historical context of the Qur'an. More than once, the article insists, one verse is interpreted too far to legalize their aspiration without giving any reference to the traditions which are related to the context of the Qur'an, and the opinions of the previous 'ulama' and interpreters of the Qur'an, who are considered more authoritative in giving an interpretation to the verses of the Qur'an.
This research uses normative legal research which mostly uses international journal literature. This will make writing more comprehensive and up to date information. The regional authority is attributively regulated in Article 18 paragraph (6) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in conjunction / juncto with Article 236 paragraph (1) of Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government. Based on these two provisions, autonomous regions are authorized to form Regional Regulations in the context of implementing regional autonomy and co-administration tasks. Related to this, Philipus M Hadjon stated that regional autonomy is the authority to form authority arrangements and the formation of principles, as well as procedures for carrying them out. Autonomous regions are given the authority to regulate in the form of Regional Regulations which function as the basis for the implementation of autonomy.
AbstractThe research objective was to determine the existence of Presidential Decree No. 33-2020 in the perspective of the principles of autonomy and decentralization Regional autonomy means regional rights to regulate and manage government affairs decentralized by the central government, including financial management. Regions are given the authority to compile and implement budgets in accordance with regional capacities proportionally and rationally. For that, Presidential Decree No. 33 of 2020 has the potential to conflict with the principles of regional autonomy and decentralization, because it reduces regional independence. The central government should have sufficiently determined guidelines for creating good governance in regional government administration and carried out strict supervision, without specifying detailed and detailed figures.Keywords: decentralization; regional autonomy;regional financeAbstrakTujuan penelitian untuk mengetahui eksistensi Perpres No. 33-2020 dalam perspektif prinsip otonomi dan desentralisasi Otonomi daerah bermakna hak daerah untuk mengatur dan mengurus urusan pemerintahan yang didesentralisasikan oleh pemerintah pusat, termasuk pengelolaan keuangan. Daerah diberikan kewenangan untuk menyusun dan melaksanakan anggaran sesuai dengan kemampuan daerah secara proporsional dan rasional. Untuk itu, Perpres No. 33 Tahun 2020 berpotensi bertentangan dengan prinsip otonomi daerah dan desentralisasi, karena mereduksi kemandirian daerah. Seharusnya, pemerintah pusat cukup menentukan pedoman untuk menciptakan good governance penyelenggaraan pemerintahan daerah dan melakukan pengawasan secara ketat, tanpa menentukan angka yang detail dan rinci.
The efforts of Mayor of Medan in creating a clean government in Medan City Government isto promote the rules and policies that have made the central government and implementedby the city government of Medan conditions include (a) the fact Integrity, (b) e-purchasing,(c) e-government, (d) reward (reward) and punishment (punishment), (e) unqualified (WTP)and the Procurement Services Unit (ULP). The role of the Mayor of Medan to prevent andtake action against perpetrators of corruption in the city government of Medan are (a) facingthe principle of transparency in carrying out the functions and duties of office to preventcorrupt practices, (b) make an early warning program of prevention of corruption, (c) andnine steps to eradicate corruption. That support wider community both from the communityorganizations, businesses, and students are needed.
Abstract The purpose of this study is to explain and analyze legal protections for the people in the use of government discretion during the Covid 19 pandemic. This research is normative legal research with a statutory, conceptual, and case approach. The results of the study found that the laws and regulations provide legal protection for the people are very limited in the use of government discretion during the Covid-19 pandemic. The people are only given the right to review the laws and regulations to the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The people are not entitled to file a lawsuit to the Administrative Court against decisions, actions and/or policy rules set by the Government in the context of handling the Covid-19 pandemic, and based on good faith and in accordance with the laws and regulations. In the future such provisions need to be changed by giving the rights of the aggrieved people to challenge decisions, actions, and/or policy rules with the aim of preventing the occurrence of executive dictatorship and excessive discreation on the grounds of danger, disaster or emergency conditions. Keywords: Covid-19 pandemic; discretion; legal Protection Abstrak Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan dan menganalisis perlindungan hukum bagi rakyat dalam penggunaan diskresi pemerintahan pada masa pandemi Covid 19. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kasus. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa peraturan perundang-undangan memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi rakyat yang sangat terbatas dalam penggunaan diskresi pemerintahan pada masa pandemi Covid-19. Rakyat hanya diberikan hak untuk melakukan pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Agung. Rakyat tidak berhak untuk mengajukan gugatan ke Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara terhadap keputusan, tindakan dan/atau peraturan kebijakan yang ditetapkan oleh Pemerintah dalam rangka penanganan pandemi Covid-19, serta didasarkan pada itikad baik dan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Ke depan ketentuan demikian perlu diubah dengan memberikan hak rakyat yang dirugikan untuk menggugat keputusan, tindakan, dan/atau peraturan kebijakan dengan tujuan untuk mencegah terjadinya executive dictatorship dan excessive discreation dengan alasan terjadinya bahaya, bencana atau kondisi darurat. Keyword: diskresi; pandemi Covid-19; perlindungan hukum
The purpose of the study was to determine the form of legal protection for officials from criminal threats in using discretion. Using pure legal research. There are two forms of legal protection in the use of discretionary authority, namely preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. The first preventive legal protection is contained in Article 67 of Law no. 5-2009 or also known as the principle of praesumptio iustae causa, namely decisions issued by government officials are always considered valid until there is an annulment. The second preventive legal protection is that the policy principle cannot be criminalized. Government policies cannot be criminalized if there are no elements of harming state finances and benefiting themselves or other parties. As well as the implementation of these policies for public services. While the repressive legal protection is contained in Article 21 paragraph (1) of Law no. 30-2014 and Perma No. 4-2015, which determines that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine, and decide whether or not there is an element of abuse of authority committed by government officials.Keywords: discretion; officials; legal protectionAbstrakTujuan penelitian untuk mengetahui bentuk perlindungan hukum bagi pejabat dari ancaman pidana dalam menggunakan diskresi. Menggunakan peneltiian hukum murni. Terdapat dua bentuk perlindungan hukum dalam penggunaan wewenang diskresi, yakni perlindungan hukum preventif dan perlindungan hukum represif. Perlindungan hukum preventif yang pertama tertuang dalam Pasal 67 UU No. 5-2009atau dikenal juga dengan asas praesumptio iustae causa yakni keputusan yang dikeluarkan oleh pejabat pemerintahan selalu dianggap absah hingga ada pembatalannya. Perlindungan hukum preventif yang kedua adalah prinsip kebijakan tidak dapat di pidana. Kebijakan pemerintah tidak dapat di pidana apabila tidak ada unsur merugikan keuangan negara dan menguntungkan diri sendiri ataupun pihak lain. Serta pelaksanaan kebijakan tersebut untuk pelayanan publik. Sedangkan perlindungan hukum represif tertuang pada Pasal 21 ayat (1) UU No. 30-2014 dan Perma No. 4-2015, yang menentukan bahwa PTUN berwenang untuk menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus ada atau tidak unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang yang dilakukan oleh pejabat pemerintahan.
Tujuan penelitian dalam studi ini menemukan pemahaman tentang Pengaturan sanksi Administratif Bagi Pejabat Pemerintahan Yang Tidak Melaksanakan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dan menganalisis konsep Penjatuhan Sanksi Administratif Terhadap Penjabat Pemerintahan Yang Tidak Melaksanakan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif, bahwa Penelitian hukum normatif adalah penelitian yang mencakup penelitian terhadap asas-asas hukum, penelitian terhadap sistematika hukum, penelitian terhadap sinkronisasi hukum, penelitian sejarah hukum, dan penelitian perbandingan hukum. Penelitian ini menggunakan beberapa pendekatan, yaitu Perundang-undangan (statute approach), Pendekatan Konsep (conceptual approach) dan Pendekatan Kasus (case approach) dalam hal ini melakukan pengkajian atau menganalisis kasus yang berkenaan dengan putusan Pengadilan yang telah mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap, akan tetapi putusan Pengadilan tersebut tidak dilaksanakan oleh pejabat pemerintahan yang bersangkutan. Hasil Penelitian yaitu Pengaturan Sanksi Administratif Bagi Pejabat Pemerintahan yang Tidak Melaksanakan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara telah diatur dalam Pasal 116 ayat 4 Undang-Undang Nomor 51 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1986, Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan yang termuat dalam Pasal 7 ayat 2 huruf k , l, Pasal 71 ayat 3 dan 4, Pasal 72 ayat 1 dan Pasal 80 ayat 2 serta Pasal 3 ayat 2 huruf k dan l Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 48 Tahun 2016 Tentang Tata Cara Pengenaan Sanksi Administratif Kepada Pejabat Pemerintahan dan dibutuhkan adanya regulasi yang mengatur tentang pejabat pemerintah yang tidak melaksanakan putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dimaknai sebagai tindakan sewenang-wenang yang dikenai sanksi administratif tingkat berat. The research objective in this study is to find an understanding of Administrative Sanctions Arrangements for Government Officials Who Do not Implement State Administrative Court Decisions and to analyze the concept of Administrative Sanctions Imposing against Government Officials Who Do not Implement State Administrative Court Decisions. This type of research is normative legal research, that normative legal research is research that includes research on legal principles, research on legal systematics, research on legal synchronization, legal history research, and comparative legal research. this study uses several approaches, namely statute approach, conceptual approach and case approach, in this case conducting studies or analyzing cases relating to court decisions that have been made. has permanent legal force, however the Court's decision is not implemented by the government official concerned. The results of the research, namely the Arrangement of Administrative Sanctions for Government Officials who Do not Implement the Decisions of the State Administrative Court have been regulated in Article 116 paragraph 4 of Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986, Law Number 30 of 2014 Regarding Government Administration contained in Article 7 paragraph 2 letters k, l, Article 71 paragraph 3 and 4, Article 72 paragraph 1 and Article 80 paragraph 2 and Article 3 paragraph 2 letter k and l Government Regulation Number 48 of 2016 concerning Imposition Procedures Administrative Sanctions to Government Officials and the need for regulations governing government officials who do not carry out the decisions of the State Administrative Court are interpreted as arbitrary actions subject to severe administrative sanctions.
Article 7 of the Freedom of Opinion Law states that: "In the implementation of public expression of opinion by citizens, the apparatus is obliged and responsible for: (a). protect human rights; (b). respect the principle of legality; (c). respect the principle of the presumption of innocence; and D). organize. Furthermore, Article 8 of the Freedom of Opinion Law states that: "The community has the right to participate and be responsible for making efforts so that public opinion can take place in a safe, orderly and peaceful manner". the right to be free without any censorship or not, but in this case it is not included in the case of spreading hatred. Freedom of expression aims to liberate responsible freedom as one of the implementations of human rights in accordance with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, to realize consistent legal protection and guarantee freedom to provide freedom, create a conducive climate, develop it, and creativity of every citizen as the embodiment of rights and freedoms. responsibility in democratic life
Youtube has become an online protest media that is used to trigger and escalate conflicts in various countries. This study explains illocutionary speech acts in the comments on the Palestinian conflict news on the Al-Jazeera Youtube channel. This type of qualitative research takes 5 news reports of the attack on the Al-Aqsa mosque complex by the Israeli military published on May 10, 2021, as data sources. Data were collected through internet archive documentation techniques and listening techniques without engaging in conversation. The data that has been classified on the data card was then analyzed by the matching method following the stages of qualitative analysis. The researchers found 720 illocutionary speech acts consisting of 4 types: representative, directive, expressive, and commissive. Representative speech acts were found in 25 utterances (4%), a directive in 320 utterances (44%), expressive in 282 utterances (39%), and commissive in 93 utterances (13%). From a function perspective, illocutionary utterances in the data source contain the functions of stating, inviting, pleading, demanding, condolence, anger, criticizing, promising, and threatening. The types and functions of illocutionary speech acts found were closely related to the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From these utterances, the speakers try to mobilize cyberactivism to generate public resistance against the Israeli occupation.
The execution of the Administrative Court decision is regulated in Article 116 of Law Number 51Year 2009. Ratio legis of Article 116 of Law Number 51 Year 2009 are (1) respect for Administrative Court decisions by requiring government officials to execute and be subjected coercive measures if they do not carry out their obligations, and (2) involving the President and the representative institutions tomake the Administrative Court decisions effective. However, the ratio legis is not reflected in the formulation of norms, so that resulting an incomplete execution regulation. It has implications that Administrative Court decisions is not executed by government officials.
The existence of Administrative Court is very closely related to the rule of law. Administrative justice has a role to uphold the principle of legal protection for the people through repressive supervision of government actions. For this reason, the main authority of the Administrative Court is to hear, examine and decide government disputes. This authority has increased since the enactment of No.30 of 2014 namely authorized to adjudicate whether or not there is an element of abuse of authority, requests for positive fictitious decisions/actions, and lawsuits against unlawful acts by the government.
