{"title":"印尼行政法院管辖权的兴衰:障碍与前景","authors":"E. Simanjuntak","doi":"10.15742/ilrev.v10n2.611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If any of Indonesia’s judiciary branches can be said to have been in constant flux before and after the oneroof system under the Supreme Court, it is the Administrative Court. From limited jurisdiction—by limitation from The Administrative Court Act (ACA), (Undang-Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara) and others unresponsive legal policy, establishment of new court, and supreme court decision—to expansion jurisdiction by enactment of Government Administration Act (GAA), (Undang-Undang Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan) and establishment sectoral laws, including expansion from Constitutional Court decision, has brought dynamic changing to the Administrative Court jurisdiction. In this paper, I will discuss to what extent the Administrative Courts have indeed changed, survived, and improved the administration of justice in their field. I will first provide a short overview of the original jurisdiction on the Administrative Court Act (ACA), followed by an analysis of the legal impact of the enactment of the Government Administration Act (GAA) and other relevant Law and Regulation. This paper demonstrated that Administrative Court jurisdiction expansion urgently required harmonization between the ACA and the GAA: the existing legal gap has been not sufficiently filled by the Supreme Court Regulation (SCR) or Supreme Court Circular (SCC).","PeriodicalId":13484,"journal":{"name":"Indonesia Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE RISE AND THE FALL OF THE JURISDICTION OF INDONESIA'S ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS: IMPEDIMENTS AND PROSPECTS\",\"authors\":\"E. Simanjuntak\",\"doi\":\"10.15742/ilrev.v10n2.611\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"If any of Indonesia’s judiciary branches can be said to have been in constant flux before and after the oneroof system under the Supreme Court, it is the Administrative Court. From limited jurisdiction—by limitation from The Administrative Court Act (ACA), (Undang-Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara) and others unresponsive legal policy, establishment of new court, and supreme court decision—to expansion jurisdiction by enactment of Government Administration Act (GAA), (Undang-Undang Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan) and establishment sectoral laws, including expansion from Constitutional Court decision, has brought dynamic changing to the Administrative Court jurisdiction. In this paper, I will discuss to what extent the Administrative Courts have indeed changed, survived, and improved the administration of justice in their field. I will first provide a short overview of the original jurisdiction on the Administrative Court Act (ACA), followed by an analysis of the legal impact of the enactment of the Government Administration Act (GAA) and other relevant Law and Regulation. This paper demonstrated that Administrative Court jurisdiction expansion urgently required harmonization between the ACA and the GAA: the existing legal gap has been not sufficiently filled by the Supreme Court Regulation (SCR) or Supreme Court Circular (SCC).\",\"PeriodicalId\":13484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indonesia Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indonesia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v10n2.611\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v10n2.611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
如果说印度尼西亚的任何司法部门在最高法院领导下的单一制度之前和之后一直处于不断变化之中,那就是行政法院。从《行政法院法》(ACA) (Undang-Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara)和其他反应迟钝的法律政策、建立新法院和最高法院的决定等有限管辖权,到通过制定《政府行政法》(GAA) (Undang-Undang Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan)和建立部门法(包括宪法法院裁决的扩大)来扩大管辖权,给行政法院管辖权带来了动态变化。在本文中,我将讨论行政法院在多大程度上确实改变了,幸存下来,并改善了其领域的司法行政。我将首先简要概述《行政法院法》(ACA)的原始管辖权,然后分析《政府行政法》(GAA)和其他相关法律法规制定的法律影响。本文论证了行政法院管辖权的扩大迫切需要ACA和GAA之间的协调:现有的法律空白并没有被最高法院条例(SCR)或最高法院通告(SCC)充分填补。
THE RISE AND THE FALL OF THE JURISDICTION OF INDONESIA'S ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS: IMPEDIMENTS AND PROSPECTS
If any of Indonesia’s judiciary branches can be said to have been in constant flux before and after the oneroof system under the Supreme Court, it is the Administrative Court. From limited jurisdiction—by limitation from The Administrative Court Act (ACA), (Undang-Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara) and others unresponsive legal policy, establishment of new court, and supreme court decision—to expansion jurisdiction by enactment of Government Administration Act (GAA), (Undang-Undang Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan) and establishment sectoral laws, including expansion from Constitutional Court decision, has brought dynamic changing to the Administrative Court jurisdiction. In this paper, I will discuss to what extent the Administrative Courts have indeed changed, survived, and improved the administration of justice in their field. I will first provide a short overview of the original jurisdiction on the Administrative Court Act (ACA), followed by an analysis of the legal impact of the enactment of the Government Administration Act (GAA) and other relevant Law and Regulation. This paper demonstrated that Administrative Court jurisdiction expansion urgently required harmonization between the ACA and the GAA: the existing legal gap has been not sufficiently filled by the Supreme Court Regulation (SCR) or Supreme Court Circular (SCC).