KAJIAN TERHADAP TINDAKAN ADMINISTRASI PADA KEKUASAAN YUDIKATIF PASCA BERLAKUNYA UNDANG-UNDANG ADMINISTRASI PEMERINTAHAN
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstrakDalam rangka menyesuaikan beragam aktivitas pemerintahan maka tindakan administrasi sebagai instrumen pemerintahan dalam menjalankan tugas pemerintahan juga mengalami perluasan penafsiran baik dari sisi bentuk, substansi, maupun kriteria. Mendalilkan pada substansi di dalam Undang-Undang tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan, tindakan administrasi kemudian diberikan perluasan jangkauan kekuasaan sampai merambah pada kekuasaan legislatif dan yudikatif. Artikel ini disusun dengan menggunakan metodologi penelitian normatif, di mana digunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual, kemudian sumber bahan hukum sekunder dianalisis dan dikualifikasi untuk kemudian dikerucutkan guna menjawab rumusan permasalahan yuridis yang ada. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa (1) alasan berpijak doktrinal perihal tindakan administrasi pada wilayah kekuasaan yudikatif (Mahkamah Agung) sebagaimana diatur di dalam UU AP tidak mendapatkan porsi pembahasan yang cukup, konsekuensi hukumnya akan sulit untuk memberikan penafsiran serta membedakan kriteria atas tindakan administrasi pada wilayah kekuasaan eksekutif dan kekuasaan yudikatif dari perspektif teori dan doktrin hukum administrasi negara; (2) bentuk tindakan administrasi pada kekuasaan yudikatif telah dirumuskan secara limitatif melalui Peraturan Mahkamah Agung, Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung, dan Surat Keputusan, namun apabila dibandingkan dengan pengaturan di dalam Pasal 87 UU AP maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa tindakan administrasi pada kekuasaan yudikatif justru berpotensi menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum; dan (3) Upaya hukum yang dapat ditempuh terhadap kesalahan atau kekeliruaun atas tindakan administrasi pada wilayah kekuasaan yudikatif pada tataran praktik dirasa sulit untuk dilakukan sebelum UU AP dan UU PTUN dilakukan upaya harmonisasi dan sinkronisasi. Kata kunci: tindakan administrasi, kekuasaan yudikatif AbstractIn order to adjust various government activities, administrative actions as a government instruments in carrying out governmental daily tasks also facing an extended interpretation in terms of form, substance, and criteria. According to essential of the Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, administrative actions are then given an extended interpretation over legislative and judicial powers. This article is composed using a normative research methodology, in which the statutory and conceptual approach is used, then secondary legal material is analyzed and qualified to be tighten to answer the existing legal issues. This articels revealed that (1) normative reasoning regarding administrative actions in the judicial power (Supreme Court) as regulated in the law number 30 of 2014 never get enough eplanation, the legal consequences is will be difficult not only to provide a comprehensive administrative interpretation but also to give a distinc qualification of administrative actions in judicial power related to the theory and doctrine of administrative law;(2) the administrative action on judicial power has been formulated limitatively through Supreme Court Regulations, Supreme Court Administrative Bill, and Supreme Court Decision, but when compared with the Article 87 of the Law Number 30 of 2014 concering Government Administratrion it can be summarized that administrative actions on judicial power may have cause of legal uncertainty; and (3) Legal remedies that can be taken against administrative wrongdoing at the judicial power, practically are considered difficult to be implemented prior to the Law concerning Goverment Administration and the Law concerning Administrative Court are successfull to be harmonized and synchronized. Keywords: administrative action, judicial power.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it