Implementation of General Principles of Good Government in Decision Number 8/G/2013/PTUN-KPG

Rasji Rasji, Calista Putri Tanujaya, Rigel Rigel
{"title":"Implementation of General Principles of Good Government in Decision Number 8/G/2013/PTUN-KPG","authors":"Rasji Rasji, Calista Putri Tanujaya, Rigel Rigel","doi":"10.57235/qistina.v3i1.2429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts was established to be a guide for everyone in carrying out justice involving State Administrative Disputes. The juridical control that the PTUN has over State Administrative Decisions can reflect the implementation of government affairs by statutory regulations. The State Administrative Court which acts as an institution of judicial power which is directly under the Supreme Court (MA) must of course provide justice in the community as a public servant so that a balance is maintained between a person and other public interests and upholds the rights of the community to provide certainty. law. PTUN is also obliged to uphold the implementation of good governance. The General Principles of Good Government are one of the foundations for creating justice in resolving State Administrative Disputes and as a guideline in issuing various decisions that will be issued by government officials. The application of the principle of legal certainty in deciding a case is one of the important requirements that must be implemented by the Panel of Judges. Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration provides an expansion of the PTUN's authority to examine and decide regarding deviations in the implementation of the AUPB. This writing aims to see whether the AUPB has been implemented properly in the issuance of State Administrative Decrees. The data we will examine in this writing is the Kupang State Administrative Court Decision Number 8/G/2013/PTUN-KPG.","PeriodicalId":194212,"journal":{"name":"QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57235/qistina.v3i1.2429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts was established to be a guide for everyone in carrying out justice involving State Administrative Disputes. The juridical control that the PTUN has over State Administrative Decisions can reflect the implementation of government affairs by statutory regulations. The State Administrative Court which acts as an institution of judicial power which is directly under the Supreme Court (MA) must of course provide justice in the community as a public servant so that a balance is maintained between a person and other public interests and upholds the rights of the community to provide certainty. law. PTUN is also obliged to uphold the implementation of good governance. The General Principles of Good Government are one of the foundations for creating justice in resolving State Administrative Disputes and as a guideline in issuing various decisions that will be issued by government officials. The application of the principle of legal certainty in deciding a case is one of the important requirements that must be implemented by the Panel of Judges. Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration provides an expansion of the PTUN's authority to examine and decide regarding deviations in the implementation of the AUPB. This writing aims to see whether the AUPB has been implemented properly in the issuance of State Administrative Decrees. The data we will examine in this writing is the Kupang State Administrative Court Decision Number 8/G/2013/PTUN-KPG.
落实第 8/G/2013/PTUN-KPG 号决定中的善治总原则
1986 年关于国家行政法院的第 5 号法律的制定是为了指导所有人执行涉及国家行政争议的司法工作。国家行政法院对国家行政决定的司法控制可以反映出政府事务在法律规定下的执行情况。国家行政法院作为最高法院(MA)直属的司法权力机构,当然必须以公务员的身份为社会伸张正义,从而在个人利益和其他公共利益之间保持平衡,维护社会的权利,使法律具有确定性。此外,警察公共關係科也有責任維護良好管治的實施。善治的一般原则是在解决国家行政争议时创造公正的基础之一,也是政府官员发布各种决定的准则。在裁决案件时适用法律确定性原则是法官小组必须执行的重要要求之一。关于政府行政的 2014 年第 30 号法律扩大了 PTUN 的权力,使其能够审查和裁决《澳大利亚联邦行政诉讼法》执行过程中出现的偏差。本文旨在探讨在颁布国家行政法令时,《防止和惩处腐败法》是否得到了适当执行。本文将研究的数据是古邦州行政法院第 8/G/2013/PTUN-KPG 号裁决。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信