Batasan Kewenangan Mengadili Pengadilan Umum Dan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Yang Melibatkan Badan Negara Atau Pejabat Pemerintah Ditinjau Dari Perma Nomor 2 Tahun 2019

Abstract

Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini yaitu pertama, Bagaimana batasan kewenangan mengadili Pengadilan Umum dan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara (TUN) dalam sengketa Perbuatan Melawan Hukum berdasarkan kompetensinya menurut peraturan perundang-undangan dan Kedua, Bagaimana pengaturan kewenangan mengadili Pengadilan Negeri dan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara (TUN) dalam perkara perbuatan melawan hukum apabila melibatkan Badan Negara atau Pejebat Pemerintah. Menurut PERMA No. 2 Tahun 2019. Penelitian ini pada prinsifnya bertujuan untuk mengetahui batasan kewenangan mengadili antara Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, karena dalam pelaksanaan hukum acara dipengadilan sering sekali terjadi titik singgung terhadap kewenangan mengadili antara kedua Lapangan Pengadilan tersebut.
 Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, pertama tentang kompetensi absolut antara Peradilan Umum dan peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (TUN) yang sebenarnya telah diatur dalam undang-undang, baik itu di dalam Undang Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, dan Undang-Undang tentang Mahakamah Agung, akan tetapi pengaturan tersebut masih bias karena tidak menyebutkan secara spesifik batasan-batasan kewenangan tersebut, sehingga menimbulkan titik singgung dalam penerapan. Untuk menghindari titik singgung tentang kewenangan mengadili antara kedua pengadilan, yaitu Pengadilan Negeri dan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara maka Mahkamah Agung sebagai pemegang kekuasaan kehakiman yang tertinggi mengaturnya dengan mengeluarkan PERMA yang bersifat Lex specialist untuk mengatur tentang itu, sehingga dikeluarkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung (PERMA) Nomor 2 Tahun 2019 tentang Pedoman Penyelesaian sengketa Tindakan Pemerintah dan Kewenangan Mengadili Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum oleh Badan dan/atau Pejabat Pemerintahan (Onrechmatige Overheidsdaad).

Resolution of Disputes Regarding Unlawful Acts by the Government in the Administrative Justice System in Indonesia

“…According to this study, Maksum (2020) stated the difficulty to determine complete boundaries between administrative decision and non-administrative decision was incorrect since the boundaries were very clear. Prang's (2013) classification is also not correct that the general-abstract, generalconcrete, and individual-abstract are the absolute authority of the Civil Court.…”

“…In fact, this raised several opinions. Maksum (2020) stated that in the practice of the Administrative Courts and Civil Courts, it is very difficult to determine complete boundaries between administrative decision and non-administrative court decision. Prang (2013) made a classification that government actions that can be sued to the Administrative Court are government actions that are concrete, individual, and final, while those that can be sued by the Civil Court are general-abstract, general-concrete, and individual-abstract actions.…”

Controversy on the Absolute Competency of Civil Courts in Investigating Unlawful Actions Committed by the Government In Indonesia

“…The definition of justice is a process carried out in court that is related to the task of examining, deciding, and adjudicating cases. The theory of independent judicial power adopted by Indonesia is based on Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution, which reads as follows: 1) Judicial power is independent power to administer justice to uphold law and justice; 2) Judicial power is exercised by a Supreme Court and subordinate judicial bodies in the general court, religious court, military court, state administrative court, and by a Constitutional Court; 3) Other bodies whose functions are related to judicial power are regulated by law (Maksum, 2020).…”

“…Citizens cannot be treated carelessly as objects. Government actions towards citizens must be based on the provisions of laws and regulations and general principles of good governance (Maksum, 2020). Supervision of government actions tests the treatment of people treated under the law.…”

Disparity in the Considerations of Judges in Deciding Divorce Disputes in Religious Courts and District Courts

“…The authority of each judicial environment includes the general court, as outlined in Article 50 and Article 51 of Law Number 49 of 2009 concerning the second amendment to Law Number 2 of 1986 concerning General Courts (2009a) (General Court Law) only authorized to adjudicate criminal (general and special criminal) and civil (general and special civil) cases, in addition to being authorized in the general civil sector as well (Maksum, 2020). The authority that they have are applied to the people in general.…”