Derogasi Hukum

The Authority of State Administrative Courts in Resolving Cases Involving Unlawful Acts Arising from the Issuance of Defamatory Policy Regulations

2026-07-31T15:37:14+07:00

Perkembangan hukum administrasi pemerintahan di Indonesia mengalami perubahan mendasar sejak diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Salah satu implikasinya adalah perluasan kewenangan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN) dalam mengadili tindakan pemerintahan, termasuk Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum oleh Badan dan/atau Pejabat Pemerintahan (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad) yang kemudian dipertegas melalui Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2 Tahun 2019. Meskipun demikian, masih terdapat persoalan mengenai apakah kerugian masyarakat yang timbul akibat ditetapkannya peraturan kebijakan (beleidsregel) dapat menjadi objek penyelesaian di PTUN. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kewenangan PTUN dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang timbul akibat peraturan kebijakan, mengidentifikasi kekosongan norma yang masih terjadi, serta merumuskan konsep ideal perlindungan hukum bagi masyarakat. Penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, kasus, dan perbandingan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa peraturan kebijakan bukan merupakan peraturan perundang-undangan maupun Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara dalam pengertian klasik, namun merupakan instrumen administrasi yang dapat menimbulkan akibat hukum nyata bagi masyarakat. Pasca berlakunya UU Administrasi Pemerintahan dan PERMA Nomor 2 Tahun 2019, PTUN memperoleh kompetensi lebih luas untuk menguji legalitas tindakan pemerintahan, termasuk tindakan yang diwujudkan melalui penerbitan peraturan kebijakan sepanjang memenuhi unsur tindakan pemerintahan dan menimbulkan kerugian konkret. Namun demikian, masih terdapat disharmoni pengaturan mengenai objek sengketa, bentuk putusan, serta mekanisme ganti kerugian yang memerlukan pembaharuan hukum.

The Constitutional Position of the President in Restorative Justice Mechanisms for Presidential Defamation Offenses

2026-07-31T15:34:52+07:00

The criminalization of presidential defamation under Indonesian law raises constitutional concerns regarding the balance between protecting the dignity of the Head of State and safeguarding freedom of expression. The enactment of the new Indonesian Criminal Code reintroduces presidential defamation as a complaint-based offense, creating opportunities for restorative justice while simultaneously raising questions about the constitutional role of the President in such proceedings. This study examines the constitutional position of the President within restorative justice mechanisms for presidential defamation offenses and evaluates its implications for legal certainty, equality before the law, and the protection of constitutional rights. Employing a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and constitutional approaches, the study analyses relevant constitutional provisions, criminal legislation, judicial decisions, and legal doctrines. The findings demonstrate that the President, although acting as the complainant, remains a constitutional office holder whose legal standing differs from that of an ordinary individual, thereby requiring restorative justice to be implemented in a manner consistent with constitutional principles, public accountability, and the public interest. The study concludes that restorative justice offers a balanced approach to resolving presidential defamation cases, provided that its application is guided by clear legal standards that preserve constitutional values, prevent political misuse, and ensure equal protection of the law.

Constitutional Review of Keuchik Tenure by the Constitutional Court

2026-07-31T15:34:54+07:00

The regulation of the Keuchik (village head) tenure in Aceh has become a constitutional issue following the inconsistency between the Law on the Governing of Aceh and the amended Village Law, which prescribe different terms of office for village leaders. This normative conflict culminated in the Constitutional Court's review of Article 115 paragraph (3) of Law No. 11 of 2006 on the Governing of Aceh, raising fundamental questions regarding the constitutional status of Aceh's special autonomy, the application of the lex specialis derogat legi generali principle, and the balance between legal certainty and equal treatment within Indonesia's decentralized governance system. This study examines the constitutional reasoning adopted by the Constitutional Court in reviewing the tenure of the Keuchik and evaluates its implications for the governance of Aceh. Employing a normative legal research method through statutory, constitutional, and conceptual approaches, the study analyzes relevant legislation, Constitutional Court Decision No. 40/PUU-XXIII/2025, and legal doctrines concerning regional autonomy and constitutional interpretation. The findings demonstrate that the Constitutional Court reaffirmed the constitutional validity of Aceh's special governance framework by recognizing the Law on the Governing of Aceh as a lex specialis that justifies a distinct tenure arrangement for the Keuchik. The decision strengthens legal certainty within Aceh's autonomous governance system while affirming that constitutional equality may accommodate differentiated legal treatment where it is expressly grounded in constitutionally recognized special autonomy.

The Death Penalty under Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code: Procedural Justice and Legal Certainty

2026-07-31T15:34:56+07:00

The death penalty remains one of the most debated sanctions in Indonesia's criminal justice system, particularly regarding the procedural safeguards required to ensure fairness and legal certainty in its implementation. Although the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) establishes fundamental guarantees of due process, concerns persist over whether existing procedural mechanisms provide adequate protection for defendants facing the irreversible punishment of death. This study examines the extent to which Indonesia's criminal procedure framework upholds procedural justice in capital cases and evaluates its contribution to legal certainty within the administration of criminal law. Employing a normative legal research method through statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the study analyzes the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023), relevant Constitutional Court decisions, and international human rights principles concerning fair trial guarantees. The findings indicate that procedural justice in death penalty cases depends not only on strict compliance with procedural requirements but also on the consistent protection of defendants' constitutional rights throughout investigation, prosecution, trial, appeal, and execution. The study concludes that strengthening procedural safeguards, ensuring judicial consistency, and harmonizing criminal procedure with constitutional and human rights standards are essential to achieving greater legal certainty and legitimacy in the application of the death penalty in Indonesia.

The Right to Privacy in Religious Court Judgments: Limits of Public Disclosure

2026-07-31T15:34:58+07:00

The publication of judicial decisions is an essential element of judicial transparency and accountability; however, it also raises concerns regarding the protection of individual privacy, particularly in proceedings before Religious Courts that frequently involve sensitive personal and family matters. The increasing accessibility of court judgments through digital platforms has intensified the tension between the public's right to information and the individual's right to privacy. This study examines the legal limits of public disclosure in Religious Court judgments and evaluates whether the existing Indonesian legal framework provides adequate protection for personal data without undermining the principles of open justice. Employing a normative legal research method through statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the study analyzes legislation governing judicial openness, personal data protection, and Religious Court proceedings, together with relevant judicial policies and legal doctrines. The findings demonstrate that although public access to court decisions promotes transparency, unrestricted disclosure may expose sensitive personal information and infringe constitutional privacy rights. The study argues that public disclosure should be guided by the principles of necessity, proportionality, and data minimization through systematic anonymization of personal information while preserving the transparency and integrity of judicial reasoning. Accordingly, clearer regulatory standards and consistent implementation are required to achieve an appropriate balance between judicial openness, the protection of privacy, and public confidence in the administration of justice.