Pembuktian Potensi Kerugian dalam Gugatan terhadap Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara

Rizky Ramadhan Baried

doi:10.47268/sasi.v27i3.558

Pembuktian Potensi Kerugian dalam Gugatan terhadap Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara

Rizky Ramadhan Baried⁽¹⁾

(1) Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
email

Corresponding Author

Abstract

Administrative court verdict number 04/G/2013/PTUN.YK. juncto 149/B/2013/PT.TUN.SBY., verdict number 18/G/2015/PTUN.YK. juncto 115/B/2016/PT.TUN.SBY. juncto 37 PK/TUN/2017, and verdict number 14/G/2017/PTUN.YK. juncto 205/B/2017/PT.TUN.SBY. were example that license (as the state administrative decision) issued by administrative officials as the object of lawsuit in administrative court, by the reason of potential loss, which normatively regulared by law number 9 of 2004 and its expansion in law number 30 of 2014. As known, principle of ‘negativa non sunt probanda’ state that facts that have not/not yet been proven cannot be proven, while it is opened by the regulation above, of course it will have implications for the procedure of evidence in court to arouse the confiction of judges and affordability of Article 53 of law number 9 of 2004 in a lawsuit with a potential loss reason. This research is an empirical legal research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Subject of this research was administrative judges of Yogyakarta Administrative Court as primary data and analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that the judge could prove the potential loss as the basis of lawsuit by assessing the legal standing of plaintiff, whether plaintiff had an interest in the issuance of the state administrative decisions or not. Meanwhile, potential losses can be proven by means of a systematic interpretation between Article 53 of law number 9 of 2004 and Article 87 of law number 30 of 2014.

Keywords

Administrative lawsuit; potential damage; proof

DOI

10.47268/sasi.v27i3.558

Published

2021-10-07

How To Cite

APA: Baried, R.R. (2021). Pembuktian Potensi Kerugian dalam Gugatan terhadap Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara. SASI, 27(3), 346 - 355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v27i3.558.

Citation format: Download Citation:

Jurnal

[1] Jaelani, A. K. (2020). Implementasi Daluarsa Gugatan Dalam Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara di Indonesia. Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum, 18(2). 56-70.
https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v18i2.1090

[2] Pattipawae, D. R. (2019). Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Di Era Otonomi. Sasi, 25(1), 92-106.
https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v25i1.151

[3] Riza, D. (2018). Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara Menurut Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara dan Undang-Undang Admnistrasi Pemerintahan. Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, 3(1), 85-102.
https://doi.org/10.23920/jbmh.v3n1.7

[4] Riza, D. (2019). Hakikat KTUN Menurut Undang-undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Vs Undang-undang Admnistrasi Pemerintahan. Soumatera Law Review, 2(2), 207-220.
https://doi.org/10.22216/soumlaw.v2i2.3566

[5] Simanjuntak, E. (2019). Tantangan Dan Peluang Kompensasi Ganti Rugi Di Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum Peratun, 2(1), 33-54.

[6] Utama, Y. J. (2007). Menggugat Fungsi Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Sebagai Salah Satu Akses Warga Negara Untuk Mendapatkan Keadilan dalam Perkara Administrasi Negara. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 10(1). 25-45.

Buku

[7] Diantha, I. M. P. (2017). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media.

[8] Indroharto.(1992). Usaha Memahami Undang-Undang tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara-Buku II. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan

[9] Mertokusumo, S. (2008). Mengenal Hukum Suatu Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty.

[10] Permana, T. C. I. (2018). Catatan Kritis Terhadap Perluasan Kewenangan Mengadili Peradilan Tata Usana Negara. Yogyakarta: Genta Press.

Online/World Wide Web, dll

[11] Sistem Informasi Penelusuran Perkara PTUN Yogyakarta. Data Seluruh Perkara. http://sipp.ptun-yogyakarta.go.id/list_perkara.

[12] Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Yogyakarta Nomor 04/G/2013/PTUN.YK. perihal Gugatan Perizinan oleh Wiwik Heruriyanti, dkk. melawan Kepala Dinas Perijinan Kabupaten Bantul. 8 November 2013.

[13] Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya Nomor 149/B/2013/PT.TUN.SBY. perihal Pemeriksaan Banding dalam Perkara Gugatan Perizinan antara Kepala Dinas Perijinan Kabupaten Bantul melawan Wiwik Heruriyanti, dkk. 8 November 2013.

[14] Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Yogyakarta Nomor 18/G/2015/PTUN.YK. perihal Gugatan Perizinan oleh Sugito, dkk. melawan melawan Kepala Dinas Penanaman Modal dan Pelayanan Perizinan Terpadu Kabupaten Sleman dan PT. Solu Sindo Kreasi Pratama. 20 April 2017.

[15] Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya Nomor 115/B/2016/PT.TUN.SBY. perihal Pemeriksaan Banding dalam Perkara Gugatan Perizinan antara Sugito, dkk. melawan melawan Kepala Dinas Penanaman Modal dan Pelayanan Perizinan Terpadu Kabupaten Sleman dan PT. Solu Sindo Kreasi Pratama. 20 April 2017.

[16] Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 37 PK/TUN/2017 perihal Pemeriksaan Peninjauan Kembali dalam Perkara Gugatan Perizinan antara Sugito, dkk. melawan melawan Kepala Dinas Penanaman Modal dan Pelayanan Perizinan Terpadu Kabupaten Sleman dan PT. Solu Sindo Kreasi Pratama. 20 April 2017.

[17] Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Yogyakarta Nomor 14/G/2017/PTUN.YK. perihal Gugatan Perizinan oleh Badan Pelaksana Klasis GKJ Gunungkidul melawan Kepala Dinas Penanaman Modal dan Pelayanan Perizinan Terpadu Kabupaten Gunungkidul. 16 Januari 2018.

[18] Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya Nomor 205/B/2017/PT.TUN.SBY. perihal Pemeriksaan Banding dalam Perkara Gugatan Perizinan antara Kepala Dinas Penanaman Modal dan Pelayanan Perizinan Terpadu Kabupaten Gunungkidul melawan Badan Pelaksana Klasis GKJ Gunungkidul. 16 Januari 2018.

[19] Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Yogyakarta Nomor 3/G/TUN/2019/PTUN.YK. perihal Gugatan Perizinan oleh Veronika Lindayati L. melawan Kepala Dinas Penanaman Modal dan Pelayanan Terpadu Kabupaten Bantul dan Yundi Kristianto. 1 Juli 2019.