Connectivity of Discretionary Status in State Administrative Court Lawsuit: Implications After Law Number 6 of 2023 on Amendments to the Job Creation PERPPU
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58835/jspi.v4i4.382Keywords:
Discretion, Administrative Court, Law, Legislative Reform, Accountability, GovernanceAbstract
This research aims to analyze the impact of regulatory changes on the handling of discretionary authority within the State Administrative Court (PTUN) in Indonesia. Specifically, it examines how the legal status of discretion as an object of dispute has evolved following the enactment of Law No. 6 of 2023, which amended the Job Creation Perppu. The study focuses on how this legislative reform affects the acceptance and settlement of lawsuits related to discretionary decisions by public officials, as well as the legal boundaries that define which discretionary actions can be challenged in court. Using a normative juridical approach and in particular, this research employs statutory analysis to evaluate relevant laws and regulations, case studies to analyze precedents in PTUN decisions, and a comparative approach to assess differences in discretionary oversight before and after the enactment of Law No. 6 of 2023. The findings show that Law No. 6 of 2023 enhances judicial oversight of discretionary actions by allowing challenges based on both procedural and substantive grounds. It sets clearer limits on discretionary authority, requiring decisions to meet standards of transparency, accountability, and public interest. This reform strengthens the PTUN's role in reviewing not only the legality but also the justification of administrative decisions, offering citizens greater protection against arbitrary discretion and promoting good governance. This research contributes to academic discourse on administrative law by offering specific insights into how Law No. 6 of 2023 impacts discretionary authority and PTUN supervision. It highlights that the law now requires discretionary acts to meet stricter standards, focusing on procedural transparency and substantive justification. For instance, public officials must ensure their decisions align with good governance principles, and PTUN now plays a stronger role in assessing the substance of these actions. This provides legal practitioners with clearer guidelines for handling disputes involving discretion, particularly regarding the balance between decision-making flexibility and citizen protection.
Downloads
References
Gooch, G., & Williams, M. (2015). A dictionary of law enforcement. Oxford University Press.
Haas, N. B. (2015). Surveillance for Renal Cell Cancer Recurrence: Which Patients Should Undergo Imaging, How Often, and When? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(35), 4131–4133. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.63.5953
Kuznechenko, I. M. (2024). Risks of Decision-Making Organization and Implementation Based on Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence. Государственное управление Электронный вестник, 103, 2024, 162–180. https://doi.org/10.55959/msu2070-1381-104-2024-162-180
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum. Prenada Media.
Mitrou, L., Janssen, M., & Loukis, E. (2021). Human Control and Discretion in AI-driven Decision-making in Government. 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494193.3494195
Montel, L. (2023). “Harnessing the power of the law”: a qualitative analysis of the legal determinants of health in English urban planning and recommendations for fairer and healthier decision-making. BMC Public Health, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15166-0
Putrijanti, A., Leonard, L. T., & Utama, K. W. (2018). Peran PTUN dan AUPB Menuju Tata Kelola Pemerintahan yang Baik (Good Governance). Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 30(2), 277. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.33056
Ranerup, A., & Svensson, L. (2023). Automated decision-making, discretion and public values: a case study of two municipalities and their case management of social assistance. European Journal of Social Work, 26(5), 948–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2023.2185875
Saxena, D., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Wisniewski, P., & Guha, S. (2021). A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare. ArXiv (Cornell University), 5, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2107.03487
Simmonds, K. R. (1970). State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens. By C. F. Amerasinghe. [London: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. 1967. 324 pp. 55s. net.]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 19(2), 345–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/19.2.345
Soekanto, S. (2006). Pengantar penelitian hukum. Universitas Indonesia (UI-Press).
Sudjati, X. Q. D., & Cahyandari, D. (2022). General Principles of Good Governance in Administrative Court Decision Regarding Request for Review of Abuse of Authority. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 21(3), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2021.21.3.3070
Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Bisnis: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Kombinasi dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Suparto, S., Adinda, F. A., Esanov, A. E., & Normurotovna, Z. E. (2024). Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations. Journal of Human Rights Culture and Legal System, 4(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189
Zhang, J., Wen, X., Mao, H., Xu, R., & Zhang, S. (2024). Does public officials’ risk preference differ in self versus public decision‐making? It depends on decision framing and bet size. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13037
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Fahmi Rosya Risadde, Aan Eko Widiarto, Indah Dwi Qurbani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.