State Administrative Decision as the Object of Administrative Justice

The "content" of the decision is an action that is capable of producing legal consequences in the field of state administration. Clearly, the action originates from the official who issued the decision, and the legal consequences of the action are regulated in statutory regulations in the field of state administration.

Decisions must also be concrete, individual, and final. Concrete means that the object of the decision is something clear and has a form. Individual means that the party targeted by the decision is an individual or legal entity, and not the wider community. Final means that the emergence of the decision automatically gives rise to legal consequences.

The "legal consequences" of the decision are a new state of affairs for the party being addressed. Here, the party being addressed will have a legal relationship with the state administrative official who issued the decision. Both parties will bear their respective rights and obligations based on what is stipulated in the decision.

Article 87 of the Government Administration Law regulates the expansion of the form of state administrative decisions. According to the article, several forms of decisions below are also interpreted as state administrative decisions.

1. Decisions in the form of written stipulations that also include factual actions,
2. Decisions of State Administrative Bodies and/or Officials within the executive, legislative, judicial, and other state institutions,
3. Decisions issued based on statutory provisions and the general principles of good governance,
4. Decisions that are final in a broader sense,
5. Decisions that have the potential to give rise to legal consequences, and
6. Decisions that apply to the Community.

In his book entitled Administrative Justice and Administrative Efforts in Indonesia, S. F. Marbun states that state administrative decisions have material and formal requirements. These two requirements can essentially be drawn from the elements of decisions regulated in the Government Administration Law and the State Administrative Court Law.

The material requirements of a decision are closely related to the content of the decision. Here, a decision must contain the following 2 indicators. First, the decision was issued by the competent authority. Second, the decision does not contain juridical defects.

Authority according to the first indicator is authority within the scope of the position and the scope of the problem. In the scope of the position, the decision must be issued by an official who holds a position that is appropriate to the content of the decision. In the scope of the problem, the decision must be issued by an official who, based on his position, does have competence over the problem that is appropriate to the content of the decision.

The authority indicator is very important, especially in the issuance of decisions involving complex government structures. Here, the authority indicator guarantees the accountability of the official who issued the decision.

Juridical defects according to the second indicator are divided into 3 circumstances, namely errors in estimation (error), fraud (fraud), and coercion. An error in judgment occurs if the content of the decision does not align with the target of the decision's issuance. Fraud occurs if the content of the decision exists based on a specific deception. Coercion occurs if the decision is issued due to pressure or intimidation that targets the decision-making official.

As for the formal requirements, a decision must be issued with the technical aspects regulated in the statutory regulations, starting from the procedure for resolving the application for the decision to the implementation of the decision in accordance with the objectives stated therein.

At times, certain parties may object to a state administrative decision. They want the decision to be affected by any efforts in the administrative field. At this point, the state administrative decision becomes the object of administrative justice.

For example, in Supreme Court Decision No. 446/K/TUN/2022, there is a decision issued by the Civil Apparatus Advisory Board. The decision imposed a dismissal sanction on a civil apparatus. The decision was sued by the affected employee and was initially canceled by the court at the first level. However, at the cassation level, the decision was annulled and the decision was reinstated, so the affected employee remained dismissed.

In the case above, the decision issued by the Civil Apparatus Advisory Board is a state administrative decision. This decision was sued by the affected party, namely the dismissed employee. The plaintiff wanted the decision to be canceled, so he took the administrative justice process through the state administrative court.

There are more cases involving state administrative decisions as objects of administrative justice. In essence, these cases contain objections to decisions issued by state administrative officials. The objecting party wants the decision to be canceled, revoked, or even strengthened.

As a note, the efforts of parties who object to a decision do not always end in the PTUN. Some forms of objection can be resolved by the objecting party together with the government. This occurs because the Law on Government Administration regulates a priority mechanism that requires every party who objects to a decision to first submit their objection to the government.

However, we will not discuss the mechanism regulated by the Law on Government Administration. Here, we will discuss the causes of objections to a state administrative decision.

In the book entitled State Administrative Law, Prajudi Atmosudirdjo argues that objections to decisions can arise due to errors in the decision. These errors are inseparable from the material and formal requirements of a state administrative decision. For example, the decision is issued using problematic procedures. It could also be that the decision has a substance that harms the interests of the community.

In line with the opinion above, in a book entitled The Law of Procedure for State Administrative Courts, Dian Aries Mujiburohman argues that objections to state administrative decisions arise because the decision is contrary to the prevailing statutory regulations. Alternatively, if there are no statutory regulations that can be used as a benchmark to assess the validity of the decision, the objecting party will generally test the decision against the general principles of good governance.

Furthermore, in a book entitled Efforts to Understand the Law on State Administrative Courts, Indroharto states that a state administrative decision is considered to be contrary to the prevailing statutory regulations if the decision has several of the following conditions.

1. The decision is issued by an official who does not have the authority based on statutory regulations,
2. The decision is issued by an official based on his authority that is not in accordance with statutory regulations,
3. The decision contains a rejection of an application submitted by an interested party because the official who issued the decision thought that he did not have the authority when in fact the authority was regulated in statutory regulations, and
4. The decision is issued based on a regulation that is contrary to a higher regulation in the hierarchy of statutory regulations.

We can also see the reasons for the emergence of objections to state administrative decisions through the provisions in the Law on Government Administration.

For example, in Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Law on Government Administration, it is regulated that a decision can be revoked if the decision contains a substantive defect, is issued with a defect of authority, or is issued based on procedures that do not comply with applicable regulations.

The explanation of the article details the term "substantive defect" into 4 forms of circumstances. First, the decision is defective because it is not implemented by the recipient of the decision until the specified time limit. Second, the decision is defective because it has facts and legal requirements that have changed. Third, the decision is defective because it harms the public interest. Fourth, the decision is defective because it contains conflicting content and objectives.

Other regulations are contained in Article 66 and Article 67 of the Law on Government Administration. Here, a decision can be canceled if the decision meets the same conditions as those regulated in Article 64 as described previously.

The impact of objections to a decision is relative to the administrative justice process. If the relevant authority accepts the objection, the decision can be canceled or revoked. If the relevant authority rejects the objection, the decision is actually strengthened or, at least, remains in effect unless there is a decision at a certain stage of the judiciary that stipulates otherwise.

However, there are several forms of decisions that are not included in state administrative decisions so that these decisions cannot be the object of administrative justice. This is regulated in Article 2 of the Law on PTUN which has been amended through Article 2 of Law 9/2004. Through his book entitled The Law of Procedure for State Administrative Courts, Yahya Ahmad Zein, et al. explain as follows.

The first form is a decision that is a civil legal act. For example, decisions regarding buying and selling problems between government agencies and legal entities.

The second form is a decision that is a general regulation. This decision is in the form of a regulation that contains legal norms and is binding on everyone.

The third form is a decision that still requires approval. This decision is one that still requires institutional approval from a higher agency or other agencies. As a result, this decision does not yet have a stipulation.

The fourth form is a decision issued based on the provisions in the laws and regulations in the field of criminal law, such as the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and other relevant regulations.

The fifth form is a decision issued based on the results of an examination by a judicial body based on the provisions of applicable laws and regulations.

The sixth form is a decision concerning the Indonesian National Armed Forces institution.

The final form is a decision issued by the General Elections Commission and concerns the results of general elections at both the central and regional levels.