在Covid-19大流行期间,Vadis是国家行政法院诉讼对象的政策例外

Ubaiyana Ubaiyana, Fajrul Falah
{"title":"在Covid-19大流行期间,Vadis是国家行政法院诉讼对象的政策例外","authors":"Ubaiyana Ubaiyana, Fajrul Falah","doi":"10.18860/j-fsh.v13i2.12901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": The issuance of Perppu Number 1 of 2020 in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, has invited a number of controversies. One of the articles that also received criticism was Article 27 paragraph (3). Article a quo negates every action, including decisions, is not the object of the PTUN lawsuit. This is clearly contrary to the principle of the rule of law which guarantees the protection of the law and human rights. PTUN is one of the means of legal protection and human rights for people who are harmed by decisions or actions of state administration. By examining library materials or secondary data and using legislation, concepts, and historical approaches, this article will focus on two problem formulations, namely whether all actions and decisions according to the Perppu are included in the object of the PTUN lawsuit? and why are these actions and decisions excluded from the object of the Administrative Court lawsuit? After conducting an in-depth investigation, the actions and decisions based on the Perppu are indeed the objects of the PTUN lawsuit, but theoretically-juridically the exceptions from the object of the lawsuit mandated by the Perppu are justified.","PeriodicalId":338293,"journal":{"name":"De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan Syar'iah","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quo Vadis Pengecualian Kebijakan Dari Objek Gugatan di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara di Era Pandemi Covid-19\",\"authors\":\"Ubaiyana Ubaiyana, Fajrul Falah\",\"doi\":\"10.18860/j-fsh.v13i2.12901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": The issuance of Perppu Number 1 of 2020 in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, has invited a number of controversies. One of the articles that also received criticism was Article 27 paragraph (3). Article a quo negates every action, including decisions, is not the object of the PTUN lawsuit. This is clearly contrary to the principle of the rule of law which guarantees the protection of the law and human rights. PTUN is one of the means of legal protection and human rights for people who are harmed by decisions or actions of state administration. By examining library materials or secondary data and using legislation, concepts, and historical approaches, this article will focus on two problem formulations, namely whether all actions and decisions according to the Perppu are included in the object of the PTUN lawsuit? and why are these actions and decisions excluded from the object of the Administrative Court lawsuit? After conducting an in-depth investigation, the actions and decisions based on the Perppu are indeed the objects of the PTUN lawsuit, but theoretically-juridically the exceptions from the object of the lawsuit mandated by the Perppu are justified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":338293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan Syar'iah\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan Syar'iah\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v13i2.12901\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan Syar'iah","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v13i2.12901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

△在新冠疫情期间发行2020年“Perppu 1号”,引发了诸多争议。同样受到批评的条款之一是第27条第(3)款。第a条否定了所有行动,包括不是PTUN诉讼对象的决定。这显然违反了保障法律和人权得到保护的法治原则。公民权是对受到国家行政决策或行为伤害的人的法律保护和人权的一种手段。通过查阅图书馆资料或二手资料,运用立法、概念和历史方法,本文将重点关注两个问题的表述,即根据Perppu的所有行为和决定是否包括在PTUN诉讼对象中?为什么这些行为和决定被排除在行政法院的诉讼对象之外?经过深入的调查,基于Perppu的行为和决定确实是PTUN诉讼的对象,但从理论上讲,Perppu授权的诉讼对象的例外是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quo Vadis Pengecualian Kebijakan Dari Objek Gugatan di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara di Era Pandemi Covid-19
: The issuance of Perppu Number 1 of 2020 in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, has invited a number of controversies. One of the articles that also received criticism was Article 27 paragraph (3). Article a quo negates every action, including decisions, is not the object of the PTUN lawsuit. This is clearly contrary to the principle of the rule of law which guarantees the protection of the law and human rights. PTUN is one of the means of legal protection and human rights for people who are harmed by decisions or actions of state administration. By examining library materials or secondary data and using legislation, concepts, and historical approaches, this article will focus on two problem formulations, namely whether all actions and decisions according to the Perppu are included in the object of the PTUN lawsuit? and why are these actions and decisions excluded from the object of the Administrative Court lawsuit? After conducting an in-depth investigation, the actions and decisions based on the Perppu are indeed the objects of the PTUN lawsuit, but theoretically-juridically the exceptions from the object of the lawsuit mandated by the Perppu are justified.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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