Kewenangan PTUN dalam Memeriksa Surat Presiden tentang RUU Cipta Kerja dan Implikasi Putusannya

S. Pratama, Adrian E. Rompis, R. Nurzaman
{"title":"Kewenangan PTUN dalam Memeriksa Surat Presiden tentang RUU Cipta Kerja dan Implikasi Putusannya","authors":"S. Pratama, Adrian E. Rompis, R. Nurzaman","doi":"10.30872/RISALAH.V17I1.516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the first time, the President's Letter in the formation of law was sued by the Administrative Court. This study is intended to determine the authority of the Administrative Court in examining the President's Letter on the Job Creation Bill. The research method uses a normative juridical method using a law approach and a case approach. Based on the results of the research, it is known that the Administrative Court lacks absolute authority to investigate the Presidential Letter on the Job Creation Bill because the Presidential Letter does not meet the requirements specified in the law to qualify as the object of the TUN dispute, namely the state administrative decision (KTUN)/Beschikking. It can also be seen, that even if the decision of the Administrative Court or the court of appeal and cassation within the framework of Judicial Activism accepts and grants the lawsuit of the President's Letter regarding the Job Creation Bill, the decision cannot have direct implications for the invalidity of the validity/legitimacy of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation because the cancellation of the validity/legitimacy of a law is not under the authority of the Administrative Court, the PT-TUN includes the Supreme Court, but the authority of the Constitutional Court through material and formal examinations. The Job Creaton Act is still regarded as legal and binding if the Constitutional Court does not invalidate it. \nKeywords: Administratif Court; authority; examine; presidential letter.","PeriodicalId":153232,"journal":{"name":"Risalah Hukum","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risalah Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30872/RISALAH.V17I1.516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

For the first time, the President's Letter in the formation of law was sued by the Administrative Court. This study is intended to determine the authority of the Administrative Court in examining the President's Letter on the Job Creation Bill. The research method uses a normative juridical method using a law approach and a case approach. Based on the results of the research, it is known that the Administrative Court lacks absolute authority to investigate the Presidential Letter on the Job Creation Bill because the Presidential Letter does not meet the requirements specified in the law to qualify as the object of the TUN dispute, namely the state administrative decision (KTUN)/Beschikking. It can also be seen, that even if the decision of the Administrative Court or the court of appeal and cassation within the framework of Judicial Activism accepts and grants the lawsuit of the President's Letter regarding the Job Creation Bill, the decision cannot have direct implications for the invalidity of the validity/legitimacy of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation because the cancellation of the validity/legitimacy of a law is not under the authority of the Administrative Court, the PT-TUN includes the Supreme Court, but the authority of the Constitutional Court through material and formal examinations. The Job Creaton Act is still regarded as legal and binding if the Constitutional Court does not invalidate it. Keywords: Administratif Court; authority; examine; presidential letter.
PTUN授权审查总统关于版权法及其裁决含义的信件
在法律形成过程中,总统函第一次被行政法院起诉。本研究旨在确定行政法院在审查总统关于创造就业法案的信函时的权威。研究方法采用规范的司法方法,采用法律方法和案例方法。根据调查结果,行政法院对《创造就业岗位法》总统致函的调查没有绝对的权力,因为总统致函不符合法律规定的国家行政决定(KTUN)/Beschikking作为TUN纠纷对象的条件。也可以看出,即使行政法院或司法能动主义框架下的上诉上诉法院的判决接受并批准了《创造就业法案总统函》的诉讼,该决定不能直接影响到关于创造就业机会的2020年第11号法律的有效性/合法性无效,因为取消法律的有效性/合法性不属于行政法院的权力,PT-TUN包括最高法院,而是宪法法院通过材料和正式审查的权力。如果宪法法院不宣布《创造工作岗位法》无效,《创造工作岗位法》仍然具有法律效力。关键词:行政法院;权威;检查;总统的信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信