Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Kewenangan Diskresi bagi pemerintah dalam prakteknya menimbulkan kontroversial Disatu sisi pemerintah gamang untuk menggunakan diskresi namun disisi lain dipandang sebagai bentuk ldquo kemerdekaan rdquo atau ldquo kebebasan bertindak rdquo tanpa batas hingga akhirnya mengakibatkan banyaknya pejabat pemerintah yang tersandung kasus hukum Hal ini dikarenakan pada saat itu belum adanya ketentuan yang menjadi dasar pedoman bagi pemerintah untuk menggunakan diskresi Hingga pada Tahun 2014 setelah melalui proses yang panjang lahirlah Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan yang didalamnya mengatur mengenai diskresi Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan menjadi hukum materil dalam penyelenggaraan tugas pemerintahan Kajian ini menelaah kewenangan diskresi pemerintah pasca lahirnya UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan keterkaitan kewenangan diskresi dengan prinsip prinsip good governance dan implikasi kewenangan diskresi terhadap perlindungan bagi masyarakat dan bagi pemerintah Kajian ini menggunakan sumber data primer dan sekunder guna menghasilkan penelitian yang lebih komprehensif Hasil kajian menyatakan bahwa kewenangan diskresi bagi pemerintah pasca UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan telah lebih tegas mengatur batasan prosedur dan akibat hukum diskresi dan mewajibkan pemerintah untuk berpedoman kepada prinsip prinsip good governance Undang Undang ini juga telah memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi masyarakat dan pemerintah karena menjadi dasar hukum materiil di bidang Administrasi Pemerintahan.

---

Principles In practice discretion for the government raises some controversy Basically the government is still in doubt for taking such a discretion but in the other side they see it as the independency or ldquo freedom to act rdquo which lead some of government officers into legal case This thing is caused by the inexistence of rules and guidance for the government in the implementation of discretion Until 2014 and after a long way process Indonesian government has published the Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration to become the material law in the enforcement of government duty This study analyze discretion after the enforcement of Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration the link between discretion with the good governance principle and the implication of discretion towards the protection for society and government This study uses both of primary and secondary data for obtaining more comprehensive result of research The result of study states that discretion for the government after the enforcement of Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration has regulated the limitation procedure and legal consequences in firmer basis towards of discretions and obliges the government to follow the good governance principles This regulation also gives legal protection for society and government for being the substantive legal basis in the field of Public Administration."

"Pembukaan Undang-undang Dasar 1945 telah mengamanatkan sebagaimana tersurat dalam alenia keempat yang juga merupakan visi dan cita-cita bangsa Indonesia dari Sabang sampai Merauke, yaitu : "...Untuk membentuk suatu pemerintahan Negara Indonesia yang melindungi segenap Bangsa Indonesia dan seluruh tumpah darah Indonesia dan untuk memajukan kesejahteraan umum, mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa, dan ikut melaksanakan ketertiban dunia yang berdasarkan kemerdekaan, perdamaian abadi,dan keadilan sosial....".Untuk mewujudkan visi dan cita-cita bangsa tersebut, perlu didukung oleh adanya kejelasan fisik dari wilayah Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia dan adanya kejelasan ruang lingkup pengolahan perbatasan agar nantinya dapat meminimalkan terjadinya konflik perbatasan dengan negara tetangga. Apabila ditinjau secara fisik Indonesia merupakan negara terbesar kelima di dunia yang dibatasi dua matra, yaitu di laut dengan sepuluh ( 10 ) negara (Australia, Malaysi, Singapura, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Filipina, Papua New Guinea, dan Timor Leste).dan di darat dengan tiga (3) negara tetangga (malaysia, Papua New Guinea,dan Timor Leste). Karakteristik sosial dalam pendefinisian batas negara di kedua matra tersebut sangat berbeda, demikian pula sifat permasalahany."

"Tindakan ‘Pemadaman’ Internet di Papua dan Papua Barat yang dilakukan oleh Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika Republik Indonesia (Kemenkominfo) telah menimbulkan berbagai dampak kepada masyarakat dan jurnalis yang berada di lokasi tersebut. Kemenkominfo mendasari tindakan ini dengan keadaan mendesak untuk melakukan ‘Pemadaman’ Internet demi mencegah terjadinya kerusuhan di lokasi tersebut. Penelitian dilakukan dengan metode yuridis normatif untuk menjawab permasalahan yang berkaitan dengan penerapan diskresi dalam pengambilan keputusan Pejabat TUN, penerapannya dalam keadaan mendesak/darurat/bahaya dalam kasus ini, dan bentuk ideal atau baiknya pengambilan keputusan diskresi dalam keadaan tersebut. Penerapan diskresi dalam pengambilan keputusan Pejabat TUN harus memenuhi persyaratan yang ditetapkan dalam Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan yang bersifat kumulatif dan ketentuan prosedural yang diatur di dalam peraturan yang sama. Dalam kasus ini khususnya dalam keadaan mendesak, tindakan yang dilakukan oleh Menteri Komunikasi dan Informatika tidak dilakukan dengan tepat dikarenakan tidak memenuhi persyaratan yang ditetapkan dalam Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan dan tidak terdapat status penetapan dalam keadaan darurat seperti yang diatur dalam Perppu No. 23 Tahun 1959 tentang Keadaan Bahaya sehingga diskresi dalam keadaan mendesak tidak terpenuhi, begitupun dengan status keadaan darurat dan keadaan lainnya. Secara keseluruhan, dalam melakukan suatu tindakan diskresi Pemerintah harus mengenali kodisi dan keadaan suatu peristiwa sebelum mengambil tindakan diskresi dan menyesuaikannya dengan prosedur dasar yang telah ditetapkan oleh Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Selain itu, diperlukan perhatian lebih terhadap persyaratan pengambilan diskresi yang telah diubah berdasarkan Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja, harmonisasi peraturan yang mengatur kondisi atau keadaan tertentu, dan perlu adanya peraturan pelaksanaan baik berupa juklak atau juknis guna mengatur prosedur pengambilan diskresi secara rinci.

---

The Internet blackout in Papua and West Papua carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Information of the Republic of Indonesia (Kemenkominfo) has brought great impacts within the people. The blackout is based on an emergency which is to prevent a riot occurred in the region. This research is a normative legal research and will answer several problems which are, discretionary taking by the government, discretion taking in an urgent/emergency/dangerous situation in this spesific case, and the ideal form discretionary taking in an urgent/emergency/dangerous situation. The discretionary taking by State Administration Officials must meet the cumulative requirements and procedures stipulated in the Government Administration Law Act. In this case, especially in emergency, the action that was taken by the State Administration Officials did not meet the requirements and procedures according to the Government Administration Act. The Government also did not declare emergency status to justify the discretion, which is a violation of the discretionary taking according to Government Regulation in lieu of Law Number 23/1959. In short, Government has to identify the specific situation and applied the discretion according to the Government Administration Law. The writer’s suggestion regarding this issue is that to keep in mind that there are a few changes regarding the requirements in discretionary taking according to Job Creation Act and the harmonization of regulation regarding certain situation also regarding technical procedure of discretionary taking are in need."

"Abstrak The passage Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration has raised its own problems due to its clauses regarding legal subjects that could be charged with reinstating state losses. This is due to the fact that such Law provides that government institutions can be determined as the party that is responsible for reinstating state loss that have occurred, which contradicts with the definition of state loss as stipulated in the applicable state finance laws that position the state as the party suffering the loss when a state loss is incurred. This research has been conducted using a normative legal research method which aims to test consistency between the legal norms applied in Law Number 30 of 2014 and the laws on state finance. Result of this research demonstrates that government institutions cannot be designated as the legal subject responsible for state losses. Such stipulation is not legally logical as it asserts that government institutions that are in fact representatives of the State may be required to return or pay the state losses to the state. Therefore there needs to be a revision to the relevant provisions of Law Number 30 of 2014 in order for such law to be in line with the provisions that presently govern state finance."

"Attempting political democratization, strengthening macroeconomic condition, and developing independent judiciary have been three sector paid more concerns in Indonesia. Beside, administrative reform in Indonesia is considered another sector that is so worth to perform since it plays significant role as prerequisite infrastructure in which other reform efforts are preceded as well as dealing with daily life public services. In doing so, taking administrative procedure law in other well-developed countries, such as the U.S, Germany, and the Netherland, Indonesia government are about to make draft of Government Administration Law. By using point of view as a practicioner of German public servant, this article emphasizes fundamental aspect of this effort in comparison to what has been preceded in Germany as well. That is distinguishing as well as separating administration from branch of political power, especially the executive, in order to maintain its independence and neutrality. It is what the respective legal draft is supposed to afford."