Differences and Points of Reference of Ood in the Perspective of Procedural Law of the State Administrative Court and Civil Procedure Law

Elfran Bima Muttaqin; Gracesy Prisela Christy; Yusep Ginanjar; Andi Sri Rezky Wulandari; Mira Nila Kusuma Dewi

doi:10.31941/pj.v24i1.6349

Authors

Elfran Bima Muttaqin Universitas Kristen Indonesia Paulus
Gracesy Prisela Christy Universitas Kristen Indonesia Paulus
Yusep Ginanjar Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani
Andi Sri Rezky Wulandari Universitas Muslim Indonesia
Mira Nila Kusuma Dewi Universitas Indonesia Timur

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v24i1.6349

Keywords:

Object of Dispute (OOD); PTUN Procedural Law, Civil Procedure Law, Dispute Jurisdiction

Abstract

This study aims to examine the differences and tangents related to the Object of Dispute (OOD) in the perspective of the State Administrative Court (PTUN) Procedural Law and the Civil Procedure Law. In judicial practice, the determination of OOD is crucial because it concerns absolute authority between two different judicial regimes. This research uses a normative juridical method with a legislative and conceptual approach, and is analysed qualitatively. The results of the study show that although the PTUN and the civil courts both handle legal disputes, the fundamental differences lie in the type of legal subject, the nature of the object of the dispute, and the underlying principles. On the other hand, there are potential tangents in the case of objects that are civil in nature but are issued by state administrative bodies or officials, which gives rise to jurisdictional overlaps. Therefore, it is necessary to affirm norms and harmonize the regulation of absolute authority to avoid legal dualism that is detrimental to justice seekers. This research makes a theoretical and practical contribution in strengthening the boundaries of the absolute competence of the judiciary in Indonesia

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bauer, M. W. (2023). Public Administration Under Populist Rule: Standing Up Against Democratic Backsliding. International Journal of Public Administration, 47(15), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2023.2243400

Brook, O., & Cseres, K. J. (2024). Priority Setting as the Blind Spot of Administrative Law Enforcement: A Theoretical, Conceptual, and Empirical Study of Competition Authorities in Europe. Modern Law Review, 87, 1209–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12881

Calo, Z., Moloney, K., & Swart, K. (2023). Legal-administrative implications of international sport for public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 46(4), 459–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2023.2282923

Cananea, G. Della, & Parona, L. (2024). Administrative Procedure Acts in Europe: An Emerging “Common Core”? The American Journal of Comparative Law, 340–395. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avae016

De Micco, F., & Scendoni, R. (2024). Three Different Currents of Thought to Conceive Justice: Legal, and Medical Ethics Reflections. Philosophies, 9(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9030061

Foster, C., & Thelen, K. (2023). Brandeis in Brussels? Bureaucratic discretion, social learning, and the development of regulated competition in the European Union. Regulation and Governance, November 2023, 1083–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12570

Gascón Inchausti, F. (2023). The new regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation in the European Union: something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. ERA Forum, 24(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-024-00782-z

Hackl, A. (2022). Good immigrants, permitted outsiders: conditional inclusion and citizenship in comparison. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(6), 989–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2021.2011938

Hasanudin, Kamsi, & Anshori, A. Y. (2024). The Contestation of Legal Foundations in the Resolution of Islamic Economic Disputes in Religious Courts. Al-Manahij: Jurnal Kajian Hukum Islam, 18(2), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.24090/mnh.v18i2.11934

Januardy, I. (2022). Penundaan Eksekusi: Tinjauan Yuridis Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Palangka Law Review, 01(02), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.52850/palarev.v1i2.4048

Jault-seseke, F. (2024). article Fagfellevurdert Publication Scientific A Comp a rison of the French a nd Germ a n Tr a nsp a rency L a ws. 2021.

Kaplan, B. (1960). Buffalo Law Review Civil Procedure — Reflections on the Comparison of Systems. 9(3).

Lambert, L. (2025). Between morality and the law: negotiating protection for queer asylum seekers in Niger’s asylum administration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 51(10), 2529–2546. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2025.2461342

Lotta, G. S., De Lima, I. A., Silveira, M. C., Fernandez, M., Pedote, J. P., & Guaranha, O. L. C. (2024). The Procedural Politicking Tug of War: Law-Versus-Management Disputes in Contexts of Democratic Backsliding. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 7(1–2), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvad008

Moerad, M., Sutrisno, B., & Ade Mulada, D. (2021). Tinjauan Yuridis Perusahaan Pemberi Pinjaman Online Menurut Hukum Di Indonesia. Commerce Law, 1(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.29303/commercelaw.v1i1.314

Mulligan, L. N., & Staszewski, G. (2012). The supreme court’s regulation of civil procedure: Lessons from administrative law. UCLA Law Review, 59(5), 1188–1251.

Parycek, P., Schmid, V., & Novak, A. S. (2024). Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automation in Administrative Procedures: Potentials, Limitations, and Framework Conditions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(2), 8390–8415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01433-3

Pernici, B., Bono, C. A., Piro, L., Del Treste, M., & Vecchi, G. (2024). Improving the analysis of the judiciary performance - the use of data mining techniques to assess the timeliness of civil trials. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 37(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2023-0058

Solum, L. B. (2004). Procedural Justice Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series Spring 2004 Procedural Justice Lawrence B . Solum. February.

Suksi, M. (2021). Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public administration: some notes from a Finnish perspective. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 29(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09269-x

Vedsted-hansen, J. (2008). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(8), 1378–1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830802364924

Version, P. (2024). Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna Archivio istituzionale della ricerca. April.

Wijaya, A., & Nasran, N. (2021). Comparison Of Judicial Review: A Critical Approach To The Model In Several Countries. Jurnal Legalitas, 14(2), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.33756/jelta.v14i2.11809