Expansion of the Objects of State Administrative Disputes after the Enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 Concerning Government Administration and Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 Concerning Guidelines for the Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies or Officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad / OOD)

Abstract

Historically, State Administrative Court (PTUN) has existed since 1986, with the enactment of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court which currently has been amended by Law Number 9 of 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court and amended again by Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. The role of the Administrative Court according to the explanation of the law, the PTUN functions as a control or supervisory agency thus legal actions from government officials do not deviate, in addition to protecting the rights of citizens from the actions of officials who abuse their authority or act arbitrarily. Currently, the object of dispute and can be sued at the State Administrative Court is only a State Administration decision reduced by the exceptions stipulated in Article 2 and Article 49 of the PTUN Law. The provisions of Article 3 of the Administrative Court Law No. 5 of 1986 on negative fictitious could potentially no longer be enforced since the enactment of Article 53 of the AP Law which stipulates positive fictitious. Since the promulgation of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (hereinafter referred to as AP Law) on 17 October 2014, there has been a change in the legal criteria from the government written stipulation (beschikkingen) which was initially restrictive and can be sued to the PTUN, yet it has recently become extensive (which was originally mere beschkking, currently it almost covers all variations of besluiten). With the enactment of the AP Law, there will be an expansion of absolute competence and objects of state administration disputes, as stipulated in Article 87 of the AP Law which includes: first, Government Administration Decrees, as stipulated in Article 1 point 7 of the AP Law; second, Government Administration Actions Based on Article 1 point 8 of the AP Law. Furthermore, with the enactment of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and the Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD), the judicial power shall transfer from the General Court to the State Administrative Court. This crucial matter continues to be the groundwork and reason for conducting the current research entitled the expansion of the state administration dispute object after the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and the supreme court regulation (Perma) Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by the Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD). Conducted through normative juridical research method, this research-based paper examined the interviews through judges at PTUN Jakarta and Bandung and the main data source within this qualitative analysis serves as the secondary data or literature data.