Shifting the Absolute Competence of State Administrative Justice in the Indonesian Legal System

Abstract

The element of justice in in the concept of rechstaat, whereas in the concept of rule of law there is no element, is a very fundamental different from the two concepts of this rule of law. The existence of administrative justice in the rechstaat concept is motivated by the government's authority to normalize all regulations in the form of statutory regulations, thus providing administrative justice as a forum for the public to seek justice. In Indonesia the authority to examine government policies related to citizens' rights is placed in a separate judicial institution, namely the State Administrative Court. PTUN's existence cannot be separated from the commitment of the Indonesian people to establish a rule of law and protect the interests of its citizens. In connection with that, Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court was established as a material form of law as well as formally regarding government administration in Indonesia. 28 years after its formation, this law was considered to be no longer relevant in responding to the challenges of the times, especially in protecting the interests of the people from the arbitrariness of the authorities. Therefore, in 2014 the government and the House of Representatives passed Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration in which regulating a great number of new competencies for PTUN outside the competencies that had existed before. Some topics in this research are related to what the forms of expansion of the absolute competence of PTUN in the government administration law are, how the problems of implementation are, and what the implications for the Indonesian legal system are. The methode of this reasearch is juridical normative, where data will be enriched by conducting interviews with PTUN judges in several regions in Indonesia. The results showed that there were several forms of expansion of the absolute competence of PTUN, such as the authority to test factual actions, to test the abuse of authority, to test administrative efforts, to break positive fictitious decisions, and to test discretion. The problem found in the field was the lack of socialization carried out by the central government, including the Supreme Court, so that it still caused confusion for the judges. Meanwhile the implications faced after the enactment of this law on the Indonesian legal system are that many articles which, besides having ambiguous meanings, are also in conflict with the doctrines and theories of administrative law that have been adhered to by experts.