Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning Amendments to Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court serves as the legal basis for the objective limitation of cassation rights in state administrative (TUN) cases. In practice, however, this juridical provision within the state administrative court system is not free from problems. Agus Budi Susilo, S.H., M.H., while defending his dissertation on Saturday (9/4) entitled “Limitation of Cassation Rights and Legal Consequences for Justice Seekers in the Indonesian State Administrative Court System,” explained that inconsistencies exist in the implementation of such cassation limitations.
This inconsistency arises due to differing interpretations regarding the meaning of state officials and the scope of decisions referred to in the article a quo. Within the hierarchy of legislation, the term used is “regional government.” Furthermore, according to Law Number 5 of 2014 concerning the State Civil Apparatus, governors, regents, and mayors are categorized as state officials. Regarding the scope of decisions, the Supreme Court has limited it to products of decentralization policy. In fact, the theoretical understanding of decentralization itself varies, whether in territorial, cultural, or normative forms.
The promovendus outlined two implications arising from the implementation of cassation right limitations, both of which may negatively affect justice seekers (justitiabelen). First, when state administrative cases that should not be restricted are nevertheless subjected to limitation. Second, when state administrative cases that actually qualify under the article a quo are instead not restricted. “In practice, there is no legal protection for justice seekers when the chief judge (of the first-level court) violates these provisions,” he explained in response to a question from Muchsan, who served as the promoter during the open examination.
In response to these issues, the Supreme Court Judicial Judge concluded that several legal measures could be taken so that the regulation and implementation of cassation right limitations may provide legal protection for justice seekers. One of these measures is the formulation of explicit provisions regarding which state administrative objects are subject to limitation and how the procedural process should be conducted. The objective is not only to ensure legal certainty but also to enhance substantive and procedural justice in realizing a state administrative judiciary that is fast, simple, and affordable. (Jati/Lita)
