Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 117 Download : 85

Main Article Content

Abstract

Article 175 of Law Number 11 of 2020 changes some of the government administration clauses that have been regulated in the regulation of governmental administration. These changes are related to positive verdicts of fictitious and requests as stipulated in Article 53 of the Law of Creating of Job which amends the clauses of Article 53 of the Government Administration Law. The time limit for establishing a positive fictitious decision has changed from 10 days to 5 days and there is no mechanism for an adjuration to the court of the state administrative to obtain a decision to accept the adjuration. The form of research used is normative juridical with qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study show that fictitious requests are considered legally granted in Article 53 paragraph (4) of Law of Creating of Job without a decision by a Court causing legal uncertainty and because the Law of Creating of Job is declared conditionally unconstitutional, it still refers to the Law Government Administration Act

Keywords

Legal implications positive fictive Law of Creating of Job conditionally unconstitutional

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Febri Sianipar, Universitas Indonesia

Magister Hukum Fakultas Hukum

Hari Prasetiyo, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

Mahasiswa Magister Hukum, Fakultas Hukum

References

  1. Agung Wicaksono, Dian, Bimo Fajar Hantoro, dan Dedi Kurniawan. (2021). “Quo Vadis Pengaturan Kewenangan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Dalam Penerimaan Permohonan Fiktif Positif Pasca Penataan Regulasi Dalam Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja,” Jurnal Rechtsvinding, Vol. 10, No. 2.
  2. Anggono, Bayu Dwi. (2020). “Omnibus Law Sebagai Teknik Pembentukan Undang-Undang: Peluang Adopsi dan Tantangannya Dalam Sistem Perundang-Undangan Indonesia.” Jurnal Rechtsvinding 9, no. 1.
  3. Asy’ari, Syukri. (2013). Meyrinda Rahmawaty Hilipito, Mohammad Mahrus Ali. (2013) “Model dan Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang (Studi Putusan Tahun 2003-2012),” Jurnal Konstitusi Vol. 10, No. 4.
  4. Cani, Eralda (Methasani). (2014). ”Administrative Silence: Omission of Public Administration to React as an Administrative Decision-Taking”, Studime Juridike (Juridical Studies), Juridical Scientific Journal, School of Magistrate, Tirana, Albania, No. 4, Year XV of Publication.
  5. Edlin, Douglas E. (2021). “The Sovereignty of Positivism,” Jurisprudence 12.
  6. Efendi, A’an and Fradhana Putra Disantara. (2022). “Post Conditionally Unconstitutional of Law of Creating of Job: Quo Vadis Legal Certainty,” Yuridika Vol. 37, No. 2.
  7. Fauzani, Muhammad Addi. (2021). “Desain Diskresi dan Fiktif Positif Pasca Pemberlakuan Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja,” Jurnal Untidar, Vol 5, No. 2.
  8. Ishaq. (2017). Metode Penelitian Hukum dan Penulisan Skripsi, Tesis serta Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.
  9. Jimly Asshiddiqie. (2018). Perkembangan Baru Tentang Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Dalam Teori Praktik. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing.
  10. Lumbanraja, Anggita Doramia. (2019). “Peran Hakim Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Keputusan Fiktif Positif,” Administrative Law & Governance Journal 2, No. 4.
  11. Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. (2017). Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
  12. Mukti Pratama, Surya. (2020). “Pengaturan Baru Fiktif Positif Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 tentang Cipta Kerja dan Kaitannya Dengan Kompetensi PTUN,” Jurnal Rechtsvinding.
  13. Parpworth N. (2020). Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford University.
  14. Rahman, Faiz dan Dian Agung Wicaksono. (2016). “Eksistensi dan Karakteristik Putusan Bersyarat Mahkamah Konstitusi,” Jurnal Konstitusi Vol. 13 No. 2.
  15. Simanjuntak, Enrico. (2018). “Prospek Prinsip Fiktfi Positif Dalam Menunjang Kemudahan Berusaha di Indonesia,” Jurnal Rechtsvinding, Vol. 7, No. 2.
  16. Simanjuntak, Enrico. (2017). “Perkara Fiktif Positif dan Permasalahan Hukumnya,” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Vol. 6, No. 3.
  17. Soekanto, Soerjono. (2010). Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: UI Press.
  18. Soekanto, Soerjono dan Sri Mamudji. (2010). Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
  19. Yasin, Muhammad et al. (2017). Anotasi Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan, (Depok: Universitas Indonesia – Center for Study of Governance and Administrative Reform (UI-CSGAR).
  20. Wicaksono, Dian Agung, bimo Fajar Hantoro, dan Dedi Kurniawan. (2021). “Quo Vadis Pengaturan Kewenangan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Dalam Penerimaan Permohonan Fiktif Positif Pasca Penataan Regulasi Dalam Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja,” Jurnal Rechtsvinding, Vol. 10, No. 2.
  21. Wulandari, Desi. (2020). “Pengujian Keputusan FIktif Positif di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara,” Lex Renaissance, Vol. 5, No. 1.
  22. Indonesia. Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. UU No. 5 Tahun 1986. LN Nomor 77, TLN No. 3344.
  23. ________. Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman. UU No. 48 Tahun 2009. LN Nomor 157, TLN No. 5076.
  24. ________. Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan. UU No. 30 Tahun 2014. LN Nomor 292, TLN No. 5601.
  25. ________. Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja. UU N0. 11 Tahun 2011. LN Nomor 245, TLN No. 6573.
  26. Mahkamah Agung. Peraturan Mahkamah Mahkamah Agung Nomor 8 Tahun 2017 tentang Pedoman Beracara Untuk Memperoleh Putusan Atas Penerimaan Permohonan Guna Mendapatkan Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Badan atau Pejabat Pemerintahan.