Objek Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara Dr Ridwan, S H , M Hum

Summary

This script discusses the concept of administrative disputes, particularly focusing on disputes related to the state's administrative actions in Indonesia. It explains the legal definition of state administrative disputes as outlined in law, emphasizing the importance of decisions made by government bodies. The video also touches on the types of decisions that can lead to disputes, including those related to employment and the significance of formal written decisions. Furthermore, it delves into the evolution of administrative law, addressing how certain disputes, such as those involving the misuse of authority, are now within the purview of the State Administrative Court (PTUN), highlighting the shift from general courts to specialized administrative courts for resolution.

Takeaways

• 📚 The script discusses the concept of 'object of dispute' in the context of administrative law, specifically focusing on disputes arising from state administrative decisions.
• 🏛️ It explains that disputes over state administrative actions are defined in Article 146 of the law, involving conflicts between corporations or individuals and state administrative bodies or officials.
• 📜 The script highlights that disputes often arise due to decisions made by state administrative bodies, including those related to employment within the government sector.
• 👨‍⚖️ The video mentions that decisions which become subjects of dispute must meet certain criteria such as being a written decision, being concrete, individual, and final.
• 🏢 It emphasizes the importance of the decision-making body being a state administrative body or official, and the decision should have legal consequences for an individual or legal entity.
• 📝 The script points out that not all decisions that lead to disputes are in the typical written form; they can also be in the form of memos, notes, or invitations issued by state administrative officials.
• 🗓️ The video script also touches on the concept of 'fictive decisions', which are decisions that are assumed to exist without a written form, such as when a government body fails to respond to a citizen's request.
• 📉 The script discusses the expansion of the types of disputes that can be heard by the State Administrative Court (PTUN), including those related to the misuse of authority by public officials.
• 👩‍💼 It mentions that 'factual actions' by government officials, which are actions not intended to create legal consequences but may lead to legal issues, can also become objects of dispute.
• 🛣️ An example given is the action of a government official cutting down trees by the roadside, which is a factual action but can lead to disputes if it results in damage to someone's property.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the lecture in the video?

The lecture focuses on understanding the object of disputes in the Administrative Court (PTUN) and the legal framework surrounding administrative decisions that can be disputed.

How is a dispute object in the Administrative Court identified?

A dispute object in the PTUN is identified by examining the meaning of an administrative decision, which must be concrete, individual, and final, causing legal consequences for individuals or legal entities.

What does the speaker mention about the legal framework for disputes in the Administrative Court?

The speaker refers to Article 146 of the Law on Administrative Court, which defines administrative disputes as conflicts between private individuals or entities and state administrative bodies or officials resulting from the issuance of state administrative decisions.

What are some examples of disputes mentioned in the lecture?

Examples include employment disputes regarding decisions on appointments, transfers, or dismissals, as well as cases where administrative decisions such as memos, notes, or even invitations from officials become the object of legal disputes.

Why are administrative decisions considered important in the context of PTUN disputes?

Administrative decisions are important because they represent formal written determinations by administrative bodies, which are essential for resolving governance matters. Disputes arise when these decisions impact individuals or legal entities negatively, leading to legal challenges.

Can non-written administrative actions be considered for dispute in the Administrative Court?

Yes, the speaker explains that non-written actions, such as memos or even verbal instructions, can become the object of disputes if they create legal consequences, even though they don't follow the typical written format of an administrative decision.

What is a fictive decision and how is it relevant in PTUN disputes?

A fictive decision occurs when an administrative body fails to respond to a request within a legally determined time frame, leading to the assumption that the request has been either rejected (negative fictive decision) or accepted (positive fictive decision). This concept is significant for handling cases where no formal written response is issued.

What changes have been introduced regarding fictive decisions in Indonesian law?

The lecture notes that the older concept of a 'negative fictive decision' has been largely replaced by the 'positive fictive decision' under the new Administrative Governance Law, where the absence of a response is assumed to be an acceptance of the request.

What is the significance of 'factual actions' in PTUN disputes?

Factual actions refer to real actions taken by administrative bodies that may not be intended to produce legal consequences but end up causing harm. These actions, such as cutting trees or construction, can lead to disputes if they result in damage to private property.

How has the scope of disputes in the Administrative Court expanded in recent years?

The scope of disputes in the PTUN has expanded beyond just administrative decisions to include actions such as the misuse of authority. This has been formalized through regulations like Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2015, allowing the court to examine the misuse of authority in government actions.