ADMINSITRATIVE COURT PROCEDURE LAW

Administrative Court Decision Analysis

(119/G/2019/PTUN.JKT)

Prepared by:
Muhammad Kunisyahputra Pasha
180622911
International Undergraduate Program

FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA

DEPOK

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………..2
1. PREFACE…………………………………………………………………………………….3
2. THEORIES…………………………………………………………………………………...6
2.1. THE RELATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEDURE TO CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL LAW CASE………………………………………………………7
2.2. DISPUTE OBJECT
2.2.1. ELEMENTS OF THE ARTICLES REGARDING THE DISPUTE OBJECT
IN LAW NO.5 OF 1986……………………………………………………………9
2.2.2. ELEMENTS OF THE ARTICLES REGARDING THE DISPUTE OBJECT
POST LAW NO.30 OF 2014……………………………………………………10
3. DESCRIPTION OF FACTS
3.1. CASE FACTS…………………………………………………………………………12
3.2. FACTS ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………23
4. ANALYSIS
4.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT
4.1.1. LAWSUIT OBJECT……………………………………………………………25
4.1.2. AUTHORITY TO JUDGE…………………………………………………….26
4.1.3. DEADLINE OF THE FILING OF THE LAWSUIT……………………..…26
4.1.4. PLAINTIFF’S INTERESTS………………………………………………..…27
4.1.5. POSITA………………………………………………………………………….28
4.1.6. PETITUM………………………………………………………………………..3
4
4.2. DESCRIPTION ON PARTY’S RESPONSE
4.2.1. PLEAD…………………………………………………………………………..35
4.2.2. REPLIK…………………………………………………………………………35
4.2.3. DUPLIK…………………………………………………………………………35
4.3. DECISION
4.3.1. FORM OF DECISION…………………………………………………………36
4.3.2. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS…………………………………………………36
4.3.3. DIKTUM………………………………………………………………………...37
5. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..38
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………40

2
1. PREFACE

The governmental system of Indonesia has changed throughout the history of the
development of the country itself to ensure the realization of social welfare as it is stated in
Indonesia’s philosophical concept of the state1. The law that regulates the government in
Indonesia is the state’s Administrative Law (Hukum Administrasi Negara often abbreviated
as HAN). In its development the State Administrative Law in Indonesia originated from
Western Europe, which at that time in Western Europe, there was a transition to the concept
of the state, namely "the state is only a Nachtwächterstaat2 or a security guard moving into a
welfare state". When countries in Western Europe adopted the concept of a welfare state, the
government began to organize and take care of the public interest.3

Administrative Law is a branch of law that studies the actions of administering a country.
This law is also known as state administrative law or governance law. It consists of
regulations governing the tools of the state to work in accordance with their respective duties.
In addition to the duties said, its activities are also fostering, guiding, caring, serving,
community and doing good for the future of the nation’s administration. 4 State administrative
law is part of public law and is derived from constitutional law. It regulates actions,
activities, and decisions taken and taken by government agencies in running the daily wheels
of the state. Administrative law of developing countries since the beginning of the 20th
century in line with the shifting of the role of the state from "night watchman" to a welfare
state is governed by many institutions with their respective authorities. Administrative law is
tested and implemented in a state administrative court environment.

1
See Pancasila. Pancasila is the philosophical basis of the Indonesian state. Pancasila consists of two Sanskrit
words, "panca" meaning five, and "sila" meaning principle. The Five Principles have become the blueprint of the
Indonesian nation. In the constitution of the Republic of Indonesia promulgated in 1945, the Five Principles were
listed in a slightly different order and in different words: the belief in one God, just and civilized humanity,
Indonesian unity, democracy under the wise guidance of representative consultations, and social justice for all the
peoples of Indonesia.
2
Nachtwächterstaat was first mentioned by German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle in an 1862 speech in Berlin. He
criticized the bourgeois liberal limited government state, comparing it to a night-watchman whose sole duty was
preventing theft.
3
Adliah, Amira. (2019). Perkembangan dan Penerapan Hukum Administrasi Negara di Indonesia p.1
4
Anggriani, Jum, Hukum Administrasi Negara, Graha Ilmu, Yogyakarta, 2012.p.5

3
 Prevailing to the fact that Indonesia is a developing country not only in the aspect of
economy, but also in terms of the realization of the fifth principle in Pancasila which is social
welfare, the government as the administrative body of the state, has many things to consider
in the creation of an effective mechanism performing as the admin of the people of
Indonesia. Effectiveness in this matter is defined as to how the Indonesian Government can
be considered as a “Good Government”. In a democratic state such as Indonesia, citizens
have a right to know what their government does, how decisions are made, and how to make
their voices heard. At its most basic, effective government protects the health, safety, and
prosperity of its populace. An effective government invests in its people, advances
opportunities for shared prosperity, and raises the revenues needed to support the public
structures that support inclusive economic growth.5 The Basic Concept of State
Administrative Court (PTUN) in the State of Law of Indonesia is a state of law. As a state of
law, it means that in our country a law has an important meaning especially in all aspects of
people's lives. All operations carried out by the state through the mediation of the
government must be in accordance with and according to channels that have been determined
in advance by law. Because the state of Indonesia is a state of law, every act of state
administrators must be based on law. The statutory regulations that have been held
beforehand, constitute the limits of the authority of state administration. The constitution
which contains legal norms and legal regulations must be obeyed, also by the government or
its own bodies.6

Transparency and openness of public law acts by state administrative bodies or officials
is a form of legal protection for the people. It is said so, because in the case of a state
administration body or official making a policy or a state administration decision, the people
who have an interest in the policy or decision must know transparently or openly. Relating to
the fact that the Indonesian government’s composition of officials still has many flaws even
until today, in order to give a chance for the people of Indonesia to give a form of feedback
as to when an administrative act is not pleasing for the people, the Indonesian positive law
includes regulations pertaining to how to handle cases when the government or an
5
"What We Do | Center For Effective Government". 2015. Foreffectivegov.Org.
https://www.foreffectivegov.org/what-we-do.
6
"EKSISTENSI PERADILAN ADMINISTRASI NEGARA (PTUN) DALAM MEWUJUDKAN SUATU
PEMERINTAHAN YANG BAIK (GOOD GOVERNANCE) - Ptun-Denpasar.Go.Id". 2019. Ptun-Denpasar.Go.Id.
https://www.ptun-denpasar.go.id/artikel/baca/4.

4
 administrative body violates any administrative regulation, any citizen of Indonesia can sue
any government official that has caused harm towards the plaintiff. 7 This procedure is studied
in the scope of the State Administrative Court Procedure.

The State Administrative Court Procedure Law is a form of justice in Indonesia in order
to resolve disputes related to State Administration. On this occasion, the author is allowed to
work on the Analysis of State Administration Decisions in order to fulfil the requirement for
the final exam of the Law on Administrative Procedures. The author chooses to analyze the
Decision with Case Number 119 / G / 2019 / PTUN-JKT the Decree of the Minister of
Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 11566 / M / KP / 2019
Regarding the Dismissal of Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia
for the 2014-2019 Period and the Appointment of Members of the Board of Trustees of the
University of Indonesia for the Period of Years 2019-2024, dated March 26, 2019. This task
is needed to deepen students' understanding of the State Administrative Court Procedure Law
itself, both in theory and in practice. The author would like to thank profusely to the teaching
team consisting of Mr. Junaedi S.H., M.Sc., LL.M., Mr. Chudry Sitompul S.H., M.H., and
Mrs. Disriani Latifah Soroinda S.H., M.H., M.Kn. because they have spared their time and
energy in guiding writers and classmates from the Law on Adminitrative Procedure course.
Hopefully the knowledge taught to us can be useful for Indonesian Law in the field of State
Administration in the future.

7
Article 53 paragraph 1 Law no.9 of 2004 concerning changes regarding Law no.5 of 1986 concerning
Administrative Court Procedure
http://ditjenpp.kemenkumham.go.id/arsip/ln/2004/uu9-2004.pdf

5
2. LEGAL THEORIES

Article 4 of Law no.5 of 1986 (UU PTUN) stipulates that the State Administrative Court
is one of the actors of judicial power for the people seeking justice for state administrative
disputes. Article 5 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) as well as Article 6 of the UU PTUN,
principally stipulates that judicial power within the State Administrative Court is exercised
by the State Administrative Court and the State Administrative High Court and culminates in
the Supreme Court as the State Court The highest. The State Administrative Court is
domiciled in the regency/city capital, and its jurisdiction covers the regency/city area. While
the State Administrative High Court is domiciled in the Capital of the Province, and its
jurisdiction covers the Province. However, up to the time the Administrative Courts have not
yet been formed in each Regency/City capital, and the Administrative High Courts have not
yet been formed in each Provincial Capital.

In general, there are three types of legal instruments used to evaluate government actions,
namely through legislation, through decisions, as well as government actions in the civil
field. Legislation and decisions occur in the public sphere because it is subject to and
regulated under public law, while the latter is specific in the civil sphere and is therefore
subject to and regulated under civil law.

In Indonesia, legal protection for the people resulting from the issuance of laws and
regulations by the government is carried out through the Supreme Court, by means of the
right of judicial review. While legal protection due to the issuance of a decision by the
government is pursued through two possibilities, namely administrative justice and
administrative efforts.8 Thus, administrative dispute resolution through state administrative
justice is regulated in order to provide legal protection to the public.

To be able to analyze decisions further, it would be nice if we could understand the basic
understandings of the State Administrative Law. We can see these basic understandings in
articles 1 to 3 of Law No. 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. 9 State
Administration according to the provisions of article 1 paragraph 7 of Law No. 5 of 1986 jo.
UU no. 9 of 2004 jo. UU no. 51 of 2009 is a state administration that carries out functions to
8
Ridwan H.R., Hukum Administraasi Negara Edisi Revisi, (Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2016). p. 279.
9
Indroharto, Usaha Memahami Undang-Undang Tentang Perdadilan Tata Usaha Negara Buku I (Beberapa
Pengertian Dasar Hukum Tata Usaha Negara), (Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan, 2000). Page 27

6
carry out government affairs both at the central and regional levels. From this understanding
it can be concluded that the State Administration is the same as the State Administration.
State Administration or State Administration is a function or duty to carry out government
affairs in our country.

State Administrative Law or Administrative Law of the State is the entire legal rules
relating to the administration of government affairs or can be briefly referred to as
government law. The administration of government affairs is a government which, according
to article 1 paragraph (2) of Law no. 5 of 1986 implemented by government organs. The
definition of state administrative law includes regulations relating to the implementation of
governmental tasks. According to Van Wijck / Konijnenbelt, the state administration law
covers the entire juridical instrumentarium used / implemented by the government /
authorities in their care for the life of the public in state funds along with guarantees of legal
protection for citizens.

In state administrative law, there is also a division between material law and formal law.
The legal norms of state administration are in the formal sense is the legal field concerning
competency issues as well as problems that must be solved by state administration judges
before they make an assessment of the validity of disputed state administrative decisions or
in terms of procedural law or procedure also known as the Administrative Procedure Code.

Whereas the legal norms of a material state administration are the legal norms that
determine what is mandatory, what is permissible and what is actually prohibited by state
administrative bodies or officials in carrying out daily governmental tasks. The material
norms of state administrative law are in the form of written and unwritten laws. In addition to
the national administrative law, the material contained in the content (content) also in the
legislation is also contained in the General Principles of Good Governance (AAUPB).

2.1. THE RELATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEDURE TO CIVIL

AND CRIMINAL LAW CASE
Material administrative law lies between private law and criminal law. Criminal
law contains norms that are important for people's lives, so that the enforcement of these

7
 norms is not left to the private party (private) but must be done by the authorities (state).
Civil law as private law contains norms that are enforced to private parties. Between the
two fields of law lies administrative law or state administration law, administrative law
can be said to be "intermediate law".
The difference between administrative law and other fields of law according to
Philipus M. Hadjon et al is:10
1. Formal Administrative Law does not only recognize dispute procedural law
and non-dispute procedural law;
2. Compared with civil law and criminal law that recognize codification, general
administrative law does not / does not yet have a codification;
3. There is no clear distinction between constitutional law and administrative
law. With regard to constitutional law, administrative law is an extension of
constitutional law. Administrative law complements constitutional law.

In its development, administrative law with criminal law always intersect. In

administrative law, the decision of state officials in the form of discretion is a reason for
rejection and punishment in the area of criminal law. In the framework of the State
Administrative Law, the parameter that limits the free movement of the authority of the
state apparatus is the abuse of authority and arbitrary State Administration Offices /
Officers. Whereas in criminal law, criminal law also has criteria that limit the free
movement of the authority of the state apparatus in the form of "wederechtelijkheid"
elements and abuse of authority (Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 Jo. Law No. 20 of 2001
concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts Corruption).

In terms of authority to adjudicate, testing of the presence or absence of abuse of

authority in the case of the use of discretion results in legal administrative and criminal
offenses. The State Administrative Court has the authority to accept, examine, and
decide whether or not there is an element of abuse of authority committed by
Government Officials (Article 21 paragraph (1) of Law Number 30 Year 2014). On the
other hand, the Corruption Court also considers the abuse of authority as an element of
corruption (Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Act).

10
Philipus M. Hadjon, dkk, 1997. Pengantar Hukum Adminitrasi Indonesia,

8
 This intersection of judicial authority is emphasized by Article 2 paragraph 1 of
Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2015 concerning Guidelines for Procedure in
Appraising the Abuse of Authority which states that PTUN has the authority to accept,
examine, and decide upon an application for assessment of whether or not there is an
abuse of authority in the Decree and / or Acting of Government Officials prior to criminal
proceedings.

But that way, if a criminal justice process has been carried out and has received a
decision that has permanent legal force, also applies the principle of ne bis in idem
which is based on Article 76 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code which states that a person
must not be prosecuted twice because of an act that has received a decision which has
permanent legal force. So, in issuing a Administrative Decree, this element of principle
must also be considered.

2.2. DISPUTE OBJECT

2.2.1. ELEMENTS OF THE ARTICLES REGARDING THE DISPUTE OBJECT
IN LAW NO.5 OF 1986
In this case, the object of the lawsuit are: Decree of the Minister of
Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, Number: 29878 / M /
KP / 2019 dated September 3, 2019, concerning Termination for Committing
Criminal Acts of Criminal Position or Criminal Crimes Who Is Related to
Position on Prof. Dr. Enos Taruh, M.Pd. The letter is a written decision
(beschikking) issued by the Defendant who is a Administrative Agency or Officer
so that this decision meets the requirements of Article 1 number 3 of the
Administrative Court Law which reads:

"State Administration Decree is a written stipulation issued by a State

Administration Agency or Officer that contains legal actions on State
Administration based on applicable laws, which are concrete, individual, and
final, which cause legal consequences for a person or civil legal entity”

The written stipulation as referred to in article 1 number 3 of the

Administrative Court Law must be concrete, which means the object is decided in

9
 an abstract, but in a specific form. The written decision aside from having to be
concrete, it must also be individual. Individual means that the Administrative
decision is not intended for the public, but for the one intended. The
Administrative decision must also be final, meaning definitive legal
consequences. Therefore by issuing the Written Decree, the decision results in a
kind of legal consequences.

2.2.2. ELEMENTS OF THE ARTICLES REGARDING THE DISPUTE OBJECT

POST LAW NO.30 OF 2014
To prevent the abuse of authority of Government Agencies and / or
Officials, provide legal protection to the public and government officials and
apply the general principles of good governance (AUPB), Government
Administration Law No. 30 of 2014 or Law No. 30 of 2014. According to F.H.
Van der Burg and G.J.M. Cartigny, AUPB are non-written legal principles that
must be considered by the Administrative agency or official in carrying out legal
actions which are assessed later by the Administrative court judge. 11 AUPB in this
case can be seen as an unwritten but binding law when it is used as a basis for
Administrative Judges in deciding cases.

During the enactment of the Law no.5 of 1986, Article 53 paragraph (2)
was not explicitly stated that the AUPB was seen as the reason for filing a lawsuit
on State Administrative Decree. However, AUPB has been used a lot by
Administrative Court judges in deciding cases that often apply AUPB to judge
whether or not the KTUN is the object of a lawsuit. In Article 10 of Law No. 30
of 2014, AUPB consists of 8 principles, namely the principle of legal certainty,
the principle of expediency, the principle of impartiality, the principle of
accuracy, the principle of not abusing authority, the principle of openness, the
principle of public interest, and the principle of good service. AUPB is part of
general legal principles and specifically applies and is important for government
legal actions.12
11
F.H. Van der Burg dan G.J.M.1994 Cartigny, Perijinan Yang Melawan Hukum Di Dalam Buku Kumpulan Hasil
Terjemahan Bidang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara,
12
Indroharto,1994, Asas–asas Umum Pemerintahan Yang Baik, dimuat dalam Paulus Effendi Lotulung (Ed.),
Himpunan Makalah Asas–asas Umum Pemerintahan Yang Baik,

10
 The principles contained in the AUPB include the following:

a. Principle of Legal Certainty

The principle of legal certainty is a principle in the rule of law that
prioritizes the basic provisions of the statutory regulations, propriety,
constancy, and justice in every policy of governance.
b. Principle of Accuracy
Based on the 2014 AP Law, the principle which implies that a decision
and / or action must be based on complete information and documents
to support the legality of the determination and / or implementation of
a decision and / or action, so that the relevant decision and / or action
is prepared carefully, before the decision and / or action is determined
and / or taken.
c. Principle of Justice
This principle means that every action in the administration of the state
must reflect proportionately justice for every citizen.

As a judicial institution, the State Administrative Court has a supervisory

function at the State Administration Agency and / or Officer. In this case, there
are benchmarks for judges of the State Administrative Court in adjudicating
disputes on State Administrative Decisions. This is based on Article 53 paragraph
2 of the UU PTUN which states that

"Reasons that can be used in a lawsuit as referred to in paragraph (1) are:

1. The State Administrative Decision that is sued is contrary to the

applicable laws and regulations.
2. The laws and regulations sued contravene the General Principles of
Good Governance. "

State Administrative Decisions issued based on binding authority, tested

with Legislation, State Administrative Decisions issued based on free authority

11
 are tested by AUPB13. Elucidation of Article 53 paragraph 2 of the UU PTUN
states that the principles referred to as General Principles of Good Governance
include the principles of legal certainty, orderly administration of the State,
Transparency, Proportionality, Professionalism, and Accountability, as referred to
in Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning Administration A Country that is Clean
and Free of Corruption and Nepotism (1999 Anti-KKN Law). The existence of
the General Principles of Good Governance implicit in Article 53 paragraph 2 of
the Law on State Administrative Courts, besides being used to sue, is also the
basis (Criteria or size) used by the State Administrative Judge in examining or
evaluating (toetsingsgronden) whether the State Administrative Decree
(Beschikking) in dispute is illegal or not.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS

3.1. CASE FACTS

Directly quoting from Case no. 119/G/2019/PTUN.JKT:

1. Nama : SATRIA ADHITAMA SUKMA; Kewarganegaraan : Indonesia;

Tempat Tinggal : Kontrakan Bapak H. Matjun Gang Kapuk RT.04 RW.01, Jalan M.H. Thohir,
Pondok Cina, Beji, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat 16424

Pekerjaan : Mahasiswa;

selanjutnya disebut sebagai PENGGUGAT I;

2. Nama : RAIHAN HUDIANA; Kewarganegaraan : Indonesia;

Tempat Tinggal : Jalan Jambore Pondok Ranggon, RT/RW 003/005, Pondok Ranggon,
Cipayung;

Pekerjaan : Mahasiswa;

selanjutnya disebut sebagai PENGGUGAT II;

13
Philipus M. Hadjon, dkk, Pengantar Hukum Adminitrasi Indonesia, (Jogjakarta: Gajah Mada University Press,
1997).

12
 3. Nama : ALFIAN TEGAR PRAKASA; Kewarganegaraan : Indonesia;

Tempat Tinggal : Jalan Ketapang I No 81, RT/RW 002/015, Bakti Jaya, Sukmajaya, Kota
Depok;

Pekerjaan : Mahasiswa;

selanjutnya disebut sebagai PENGGUGAT III;

4. Nama : BIMO MAULIDIANTO PUTRA BONO; Kewarganegaraan : Indonesia;

Tempat Tinggal : Jalan Kp Rawa Taman, Mekarwangi, RT/RW 001/003, Tanah Sareal,
Jakarta;

Pekerjaan : Mahasiswa;

selanjutnya disebut sebagai PENGGUGAT IV;

Untuk selanjutnya kesemuanya disebut sebagai PARA PENGGUGAT.

Melawan:

Nama Jabatan : MENTERI RISET, TEKNOLOGI DAN PENDIDIKAN TINGGI

REBUPLIK INDONESIA

Tempat Kedudukan: Jalan Medan Merdeka Utara Nomor 7-8 Jakarta Pusat 10110, DKI Jakarta;

Untuk selanjutnya disebut sebagai TERGUGAT.

DAN

1. DR. BAMBANG PS BROJONEGORO, tempat tinggal di Jalan Jati Padang Utara RT.
013 RW. 002, Kel. Jati Padang, Kecamatan Pasar Minggu, Jakarta Selatan, Pekerjaan
Karyawan Swasta; Selanjutnya disebut sebagai TERGUGAT II INTERVENSI 1;
2. ERICK TOHIR, tempat tinggal di Gd. Peluru Blok A/25, RT. 001 RW. 003, Kelurahan
Kebon Baru, Kecamatan Tebet, Jakarta Selatan, Pekerjaan Karyawan Swasta,
Selanjutnya disebut sebagai TERGUGAT II INTERVENSI 2;
3. SALEH HUSIN, S.E., M.Si., tempat tinggal di Jalan Mimosa Blok M/5, RT. 009 RW.
004, Kel. Pejaten Barat, Kecamatan Pasar Minggu, Jakarta Selatan, Pekerjaan Pekerjaan
Lainnya; Selanjutnya disebut sebagai TERGUGAT II INTERVENSI 3;

13
- Bahwa, Para Penggugat telah mengajukan gugatan tanggal 31 Mei 2019, yang
didaftarkan di Kepaniteraan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Jakarta pada tanggal 31 Mei
2019, dengan Register Perkara Nomor 119/G/2019/PTUN.JKT., dan gugatan telah
diperbaiki pada tanggal 9 Juli 2019, Penggugat mengemukakan pada pokoknya:
- Bahwa Objek Sengketa dalam gugatan ini adalah Keputusan Menteri Riset, Teknologi,
Dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia, Nomor 11566/M/KP/2019 Tentang
Pemberhentian Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun
2014-2019 Dan Pengangkatan Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia
Periode Tahun 2019-2024, tertanggal 26 Maret 2019 yang selanjutnya disebut Objek
Sengketa;
- Bahwa Objek Sengketa yang dimaksud dalam Keputusan Menteri Riset, Teknologi, Dan
Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia Nomor 11566/M/KP/2019 Tentang
Pemberhentian Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun
2014-2019 Dan Pengangkatan Aanggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia
Periode Tahun 2019-2024, tertanggal 26 Maret 2019 adalah sepanjang dengan Nomor:

3) Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D (Wakil Dosen);

7) Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D. (Wakil Dosen);

11) Erick Thohir (Wakil Masyarakat);

15) Saleh Husin (Wakil Masyarakat);

Bahwa Objek Sengketa adalah jelas suatu penetapan tertulis yang dikeluarkan oleh badan
atau pejabat tata usaha negara yang berisi tindakan hukum tata usaha negara yang
berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku

II. TENGGANG WAKTU GUGATAN:

1. Bahwa pada tanggal 27 Maret 2019 PARA PENGGUGAT mengetahui informasi

terkait pengangkatan Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode 2019
– 2024 melalui kanal resmi media sosial aplikasi LINE Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas
Indonesia Unsur Mahasiswa (MWA UI UM);

14
2. Bahwa setelah mengetahui informasi demikian, PARA PENGGUGAT mencari Objek
Sengketa melalui mesin pencarian (google.com) dan menemukan Objek Sengketa dengan
tautan

https://mwa.ui.ac.id/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/11566_M_KP_2019-Pengangkatan-
MWA2019-2024.pdf;

3. Bahwa PARA PENGGUGAT mengajukan upaya administratif berupa keberatan

terhadap Objek Sengketa pada tanggal 22 April 2019 ke Kementerian Riset, Teknologi,
dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia;

4. Bahwa oleh karenanya Keberatan a quo diajukan masih dalam tenggang waktu 21
(dua puluh satu) hari sejak diumumkannya Objek Sengketa sebagaimana disebutkan
ketentuan Pasal 77 ayat (1) Undang-Undang RI Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang
Administrasi Pemerintahan;

5. Bahwa setelah 10 (sepuluh) hari kerja setelah diajukannya keberatan a quo,

TERGUGAT tidak menyelesaikan keberatan;

6. Bahwa oleh karenanya TERGUGAT telah dianggap mengabulkan keberatan a quo

sebagaimana disebutkan ketentuan Pasal 77 ayat (5) Undang-Undang RI Nomor 30
Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan;

7. Bahwa setelah 16 (enam belas) hari kerja setelah keberatan a quo dianggap
dikabulkan, TERGUGAT tidak menetapkan Keputusan sesuai dengan keberatan a quo,
serta PARA PENGGUGAT mengajukan gugatan terhadap OBJEK SENGKETA pada
tanggal 31 Mei 2019;

8. Bahwa oleh karenanya Gugatan a quo diajukan masih dalam tenggang waktu 90
(sembilan puluh) hari sejak diumumkan, diketahui sertai diterimanya Objek Sengketa
sebagaimana disebutkan ketentuan Pasal 55 Undang-Undang RI Nomor 5 Tahun 1986
tentang Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Jo. Bagian V angka 3 SEMA No. 2 Tahun 1991
Tentang Petunjuk Pelaksanaan beberapa ketentuan dalam UU No. 5 Tahun 1986 tentang
PTUN;

III. KEPENTINGAN PARA PENGGUGAT YANG DIRUGIKAN

15
1. Bahwa berdasarkan Pasal 53 ayat (1) UndangUndang Nomor 5 Tahun 1986 tentang
Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, seseorang atau badan hukum perdata yang merasa
kepentingannya dirugikan oleh suatu Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara dapat mengajukan
gugatan tertulis kepada pengadilan yang berwenang;

2. Bahwa PARA PENGGUGAT merupakan perorangan warga negara Indonesia yang

dibuktikan identitasnya dengan kartu Tanda Penduduk dari PARA PENGGUGAT yang
kepentingannya dirugikan dengan dikeluarkannya Objek Sengketa;

3. Bahwa PARA PENGGUGAT adalah Mahasiswa yang sedang menuntut ilmu di

Universitas Indonesia (UI);

4. Bahwa Universitas Indonesia sebagai tempat PARA PENGGUGAT menuntut ilmu

adalah Perguruan Tinggi Negeri Badan Hukum yang memiliki Majelis Wali Amanat
(MWA) sebagai organ Universitas Indonesia yang mewakili Pemerintah, Masyarakat dan
UI untuk menjalankan fungsi normatif di bidang non-akademik, menentukan kebijakan
umum, mengawasi dan mengevaluasi pengelolaan UI termasuk kondisi kesehatan
keuangan;

5. Bahwa dengan dikeluarkannya Objek Sengketa yang berisi penetapan anggota MWA
UI menimbulkan polemik di kalangan civitas academica Universitas Indonesia tentang
independensi perguruan tinggi;

6. Bahwa 2 (dua) orang dari 17 (tujuh belas) anggota MWA UI terpilih memiliki afiliasi
politik, dimana Erick Thohir adalah ketua Tim Kampanye Nasional Jokowi-Maaruf Amin
dalam pemilihan presiden 2019, kemudian Saleh Husein masih tercatat sebagai Wakil
Ketua Umum Partai Hanura periode 2015-2020 berdasarkan Keputusan Menkumham M.
HH - 01 AH.11.01 Tahun 2018 (Resktrukturisasi, Reposisi dan Revitalisasi Pengurus
Dewan Pimpinan Pusat Partai Hati Nurani Rakyat Masa Bakti 2015-2020);

7. Bahwa 2 (dua) orang lainnya dari 17 (tujuh belas) Anggota MWA UI terpilih tidak
memenuhi persyarakat sebagai anggota MWA UI unsur (wakil) Dosen dan terkesan tidak
independen, dimana Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P.,
Ph.D merupakan Menteri Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (PPN) atau Kepala Badan

16
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas) Republik Indonesia dan Sri Mulyani
Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D merupakan Menteri Keungan Republik Indonesia;

8. Bahwa menurut pandangan Para Pemohon, keberadaan Erick Tohir, Saleh Husin, Prof.
Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D, dan Sri Mulyani
Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D di MWA UI merupakan suatu bentuk intervensi politik di
ranah akademik. Kedudukan keduanya sangatlah lekat dengan afiliasi dan kepentingan
politik tertentu sehingga secara langsung politisi telah mengintervensi institusi
pendidikan dengan cara ikut campur suatu pengelolaan Perguruan Tinggi Negeri yang
seharusnya ditegakkan Political Neutrality In Classroom;

9. Bahwa sebagai Mahasasiwa, Para Pemohon memegang teguh prinsip Political

Neutrality In Classroom, yakni institusi pendidikan haruslah bebas dari intervensi politik
dalam bentuk apapun, sebab kaum intelektual harus bersikap kritis dan objektif melihat
segala permasalahan yang ada dalam mencari solusi. Karena itu, universitas sebagai
sebuah institusi yang diisi oleh kaum intelektual tak boleh menjadi alat politik para
politisi. Kampus harus memposisikan dirinya di tengah dan tak menunjukan
keberpihakannya kepada salah satu kekuatan politik;

10. Bahwa Para Pemohon bergerak dengan berlandaskan semangat amanat Mahasiswa
sebagaimana termaktub dalam Pembukaan Undang-Undang Dasar Ikatan Keluarga
Mahasiswa Universitas Indonesia (UUD IKM UI) bahwa sesungguhnya mahasiswa
adalah pemuda-pemudi yang memiliki keyakinan kepada kebenaran dan telah
tercerahkan pemikirannya serta diteguhkan hatinya saat mereka berdiri di hadapan
kezaliman. Oleh sebab itu, sepatutnya mahasiswa bergerak untuk mengubah kondisi
bangsa menuju masyarakat madani yang adil dan makmur. Perjuangan pergerakan
kemahasiswaan akan selalu ada selamanya sebagai agen perubah, kekuatan moral, dan
bekal masa depan untuk mengusung cita-cita perjuangan negara;

11. Bahwa berdasarkan landasan pergerakan yang diamanatkan UUD IKM UI, jelas Para
Pemohon hanyalah Mahasiswa kritis yang tidak terafiliasi politik dan selalu bersikap
objektif menilai kinerja pemerintah;

17
12. Bahwa Pemikiran kritis PARA PENGGUGAT yang objektif dan tidak terafiliasi
politik tertentu, akan terkekang apabila kemudian institusi Pendidikan tempat PARA
PENGGUGAT menuntut ilmu di dalamnya ditunggangi oleh afiliasi politik tertentu.
Sebab, sangat terbuka kemungkinan upaya untuk membungkam kritik PARA
PENGGUGAT melalui sistem dan mekanisme lainnya yang mahasiswa tidak ketahui;

IV. KEWENANGAN PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA

1. Bahwa ketentuan Pasal 1 angka 3 Undang-Undang RI No 5 Tahun 1986 tentang

Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara jo Pasal 1 angka 9 Undang-Undang RI No 51 Tahun 2009
tentang Perubahan Kedua Undang-Undang No 5 Tahun 1986 tentang Pengadilan Tata
Usaha Negara mendefenisikan Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara adalah “suatu penetapan
tertulis yang dikeluarkan oleh badan atau pejabat tata usaha negara yang berisi tindakan
hukum yang berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, yang bersifat
kongkret, individual, dan final, yang membawa akibat hukum bagi seseorang atau badan
hukum perdata”;

2. Bahwa berdasarkan definisi dalam angka 1 di atas, Surat Keputusan : Menteri Riset,
Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia Nomor 11566/M/KP/2019 tahun
2019 yang telah dikeluarkan oleh TERGUGAT pada tanggal 26 Maret 2019 adalah
terang benderang sebuah keputusan tertulis yang berisi penetapan (beschikking) dan
langsung berlaku sejak dikeluarkan oleh pejabat yang membuatnya (einmalig);

3. Bahwa Kemenristekdikti memiliki kewenangan legal administratif dalam mengangkat

dan memberhentikan Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat atas usulan Senat Akademik
berdasarkan Pasal 22 ayat (3) Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 68 tahun 2013 tentang Statuta
Universitas Indonesia. Dengan demikian, nyatalah bahwa TERGUGAT adalah “badan
atau pejabat tata usaha negara” sebagaimana dimaksudkan dalam Pasal 1 angka 8
Undang-Undang No 51 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang No
5 Tahun 1986 tentang Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara;

4. Bahwa Keputusan Menteri Riset, Teknologi, Dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik

Indonesia, Nomor 11566/M/KP/2019 Tentang Pemberhentian Anggota Majelis Wali
Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2014-2019 Dan Pengangkatan Anggota

18
Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2019- 2024 tertanggal 26
Maret 2019 jelas adalah suatu penetapan tertulis yang dikeluarkan oleh badan atau
pejabat tata usaha negara yang berisi tindakan hukum tata usaha negara yang berdasarkan
peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku;

5. Bahwa Objek Sengketa adalah jelas suatu penetapan tertulis yang dikeluarkan oleh
badan atau pejabat tata usaha negara yang berisi tindakan hukum tata usaha negara yang
berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku;

A. Bahwa Objek Sengketa bersifat konkrit karena dalam Keputusan itu tidak
abstrak, tetapi berwujud dan nyata-nyata secara tegas menyebutkan “nama-nama
Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia periode 2019-2024”;

B. Bahwa Objek Sengketa bersifat individual karena tidak ditujukan untuk umum,
tetapi secara spesifik menyebut nama-nama Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat
Universitas Indonesia periode 2019-2024 dalam hal ini nomor 3, 7, 11, dan 15
sebagai subjek hukum didalamnya;

C. Bahwa Objek Sengketa telah bersifat final karena tidak lagi memerlukan
persetujuan dari instansi tertentu baik bersifat horizontal maupun vertikal. Dengan
demikian OBJEK SENGKETA telah bersifat definitif dan telah menimbulkan
akibat hukum;

6. Bahwa Objek Sengketa telah menimbulkan akibat hukum, yakni Anggota Majelis Wali
Amanat Universitas Indonesia yang telah ditetapkan secara hukum menjadi wakil PARA
PENGGUGAT dalam organ Universitas Indonesia yang menyusun dan menetapkan
kebijakan umum Universitas Indonesia;

7. Bahwa PARA PENGGUGAT, dengan alasan-alasan yuridis sebagaimana akan

diuraikan nanti, dengan tegas menolak Surat Keputusan TERGUGAT a-quo dan
menganggapnya sebagai tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum yang mengikat. Penolakan
PARA PENGGUGAT ini sebagaimana didefinisikan dalam Pasal 1 angka 4 Undang-
Undang No 5 Tahun 1986 tentang Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara jo Pasal 1 angka 10
Undang-Undang RI No 51 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang

19
Nomor 5 Tahun 1986 tentang Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, adalah “sengketa tata usaha
negara”;

8. Bahwa ketentuan Pasal 47 Undang-Undang RI No 5 Tahun 1986 tentang Pengadilan

Tata Usaha Negara menegaskan bahwa Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara “bertugas dan
berwenang memeriksa, memutus, dan menyelesaikan sengketa Tata Usaha Negara”;

9. Bahwa berdasarkan argumentasi sebagaimana diuraikan di atas, PARA PENGGUGAT

menyimpulkan bahwa Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, dalam hal ini Pengadilan Tata
Usaha Negara Jakarta, yang yurisdiksinya mencakupi tempat kedudukan TERGUGAT
sebagaimana telah diuraikan di awal Surat Gugatan ini, adalah berwenang untuk
memeriksa dan memutus sengketa sebagaimana tertuang dalam Surat Gugatan ini;

10. Bahwa berdasarkan argumentasi sebagaimana diuraikan di atas, Bahwa PARA

PENGGUGAT merasa dirugikan karena Penggugat 1, 2, 3 dan 4 adalah mahasiswa yang
memiliki komitmen menjaga reputasi dan independensi Universitas Indonesia sebagai
perguruan tinggi terbaik di Indonesia;

11. Bahwa PARA PENGGUGAT berkewajiban untuk memastikan keanggotaan Majelis

Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia haruslah diisi oleh orang-orang yang memiliki
kualifikasi dan rekam jejak yang jelas dalam pengembangan pendidikan tinggi, serta
dilakukan melalui proses yang sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan;

V. POSITA DAN DASAR HUKUM

1. Pendahuluan

A. Bahwa Senat Akademik Universitas Indonesia telah memilih Majelis Wali Amanat
Universitas Indonesia periode 2019-2024 melalui proses rekrutmen dan seleksi Calon
yang berakhir pada tanggal 14 Maret 2019;

B. Bahwa MWA UI periode 2019-2024 yang terpilih sebagai berikut:

1) Menteri Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi;

2) Rektor Universitas Indonesia;
3) Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D
(Wakil Dosen);

20
 4) Dra. Corina D. S. Riantoputra, M. Com., Ph.D., Psikolog (Wakil Dosen);
5) Dr. Freddy Buhama Lumban Tobing (Wakil Dosen;
6) Dr. Dra. Sri Mardiyati, M.Kom (Wakil Dosen);
7) Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D. (Wakil Dosen);
8) Prof. drh. Wiku Bakti Bawono Adisasmito, M.Sc., Ph.D (Wakil Dosen);
9) Dr. drg. Yosi Kusuma Eriwati, M.Si. (Wakil Dosen);
10) Darmin Nasution (Wakil Masyarakat);
11) Erick Thohir (Wakil Masyarakat);
12) Hans Kartikahadi (Wakil Masyarakat);
13) Jonathan Tahir (Wakil Masyarakat);
14) Noni Sri Ayati Purnomo (Wakil Masyarakat);
15) Saleh Husin (Wakil Masyarakat);
16) Luluk Tri Wulandari (Wakil Tenaga Kependidikan);
17) Althof Endawansa (Wakil Mahasiswa);

C. Bahwa setelah pemilihan, Rektor Universitas mengirimkan surat yang berisikan

nama-nama MWA UI terpilih ke Menristekdikti sehingga Menristekdikti menerbitkan
Surat Keputusan Menteri Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia
Nomor 11566/M/KP/2019 tahun 2019 tentang Pemberhentian Anggota Majelis Wali
Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2014-2019 dan Pengangkatan Anggota
Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2019-2024 pada tanggal 23
Maret 2019;

VI. Petitum/Tuntutan:

1. Mengabulkan gugatan PARA PENGGUGAT seluruhnya;

2. Menyatakan batal atau tidak sah Keputusan Menteri Riset, Teknologi, Dan Pendidikan
Tinggi Republik Indonesia, Nomor 11566/M/KP/2019 Tentang Pemberhentian Anggota
Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2014-2019 Dan Pengangkatan
Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2019-2024, tertanggal
26 Maret 2019

21
3. Mewajibkan TERGUGAT untuk mencabut Keputusan Menteri Riset, Teknologi, Dan
Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia, Nomor 11566/M/KP/2019 Tentang Pemberhentian
Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2014-2019 Dan
Pengangkatan Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia Periode Tahun 2019-
2024, tertanggal 26 Maret 2019

4. Menghukum TERGUGAT membayar biaya perkara; Bahwa, atas gugatan Para Penggugat,
Tergugat telah mengajukan jawaban secara tertulis tertanggal 24 Juli 2019 dalam sidang
terbuka untuk umum pada hari Rabu tanggal 31 Juli 2019.

- Bahwa, Para Penggugat telah mengajukan replik secara tertulis tertanggal 7 Agustus 2019
atas jawaban pihak Tergugat, yang diserahkan dalam sidang terbuka untuk umum pada hari
Rabu tanggal 7 Agustus 2019 dan terhadap replik Para Penggugat, Tergugat mengajukan
duplik secara tertulis tertanggal 14 Agustus 2019 yang diserahkan dalam siding terbuka
untuk umum pada hari Rabu tanggal 14 Agustus 2019;

- Bahwa, Para Penggugat telah mengajukan replik secara tertulis tertanggal 14 Agustus 2019
atas jawaban pihak Tergugat II Intervensi 1 s/d 3, yang diserahkan dalam sidang terbuka
untuk umum pada hari Rabu tanggal 14 Agustus 2019, dan terhadap replik Para Penggugat
tersebut Tergugat II Intervensi 1 s/d 3 telah mengajukan duplik secara tertulis tertanggal 21
Agustus 2019 yang diserahkan dalam sidang terbuka untuk umum pada hari Rabu tanggal 21
Agustus 2019;

- Bahwa, untuk menguatkan dalil-dalilnya Para Penggugat telah mengajukan alat bukti
berupa fotokopi surat-surat yang telah diberi meterai cukup serta telah dicocokkan dengan
pembandingnya, masingmasing diberi tanda P-1 sampai dengan P-13 dan terhadap bukti P-8
dan P-9 tidak jadi diserahkan.

- Bahwa, untuk memperkuat dalil-dalilnya Tergugat telah mengajukan alat bukti berupa
fotokopi surat-surat yang telah diberi meterai cukup serta telah dicocokkan dengan
pembandingnya, masing-masing diberi tanda T-1 sampai dengan T-25,

- Bahwa, untuk memperkuat dalil-dalilnya Tergugat II Intervensi I, Tergugat II Intervensi II

dan Tergugat Intervensi III telah mengajukan alat bukti berupa fotokopi surat-surat yang

22
telah diberi meterai cukup serta telah dicocokkan dengan pembandingnya, masing-masing
diberi tanda T.II.Int.1.s/d.3-1 sampai dengan T.II.Int.1.s/d.3-16.a,

- Bahwa, Para Penggugat dalam sengketa ini telah mengajukan 2 (dua) orang saksi dan 2
(dua) orang Ahli yang memberikan keterangan dan pendapat di bawah sumpah menurut
agama dan kepercayaanya.

- Bahwa Tergugat dalam sengketa ini tidak mengajukan ahli dan telah mengajukan 2 (dua)
orang saksi yang memberikan keterangan di bawah sumpah menurut agama dan
kepercayaannya.

- Bahwa, Para Penggugat, Tergugat dan Tergugat II Intervensi 1, Tergugat II Intervensi 2,

Terggat II Intervensi 3 masing-masing telah mengajukan kesimpulan secara tertulis pada
persidangan tanggal 21 November 2019.

3.2. FACTS ANALYSIS

Based on the facts quoted above, it can be concluded that another viewpoint of the facts
in this case are as stated below:
- The substance of the Dispute Object in this case is the Decree of the Minister of Research
and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 11566 / M / KP / 2019 Regarding
the Dismissal of Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia for the
2014-2019 Period and the Appointment of Members of the Board of Trustees of the
University of Indonesia for the Period of Years 2019-2024, dated March 26, 2019
- The plaintiffs submitted an administrative effort in the form of objection to the Disputed
Object on April 22, 2019 to the Ministry of Research and Technology of the Republic of
Indonesia. The objection was corresponding to Article 77 paragraph 1 Law no.30 of 2014
concerning Government Administration. However, after 10 days of the submission, the
Defendant does not continue the objection which makes the plaintiff assume that their
wish was accepted according to Article 77 paragraph 5 of the prevailing law.
- The objection was found not to be taken into account by the Defendant after 16 days that
the a quo objection was assumed to be accepted. This event led to the filing of a lawsuit
on the object of dispute on May 31, 2019. Because the Plaintiffs felt that the Defendant
has caused disadvantages towards the Plaintiffs, according to Article 53 paragraph 1 of

23
 Law no.5 year 1986, where disadvantages are based on the Administrative Decision from
the Ministry of Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia.
- The issuance of a Dispute Object which contains the determination of the members of the
MWA UI has caused a polemic among the academicians of the University of Indonesia
concerning the independence of the University where it is stated that 2 out of 17 members
of the MWA UI that are elected have political affiliation, where Erick Thohir was the
head of the Jokowi-Maaruf Amin National Campaign Team in the 2019 presidential
election, then Saleh Husein was still listed as the Deputy Chair of the 2015- Hanura Party
2020 based on the Decree of Menkumham M. HH - 01 AH.11.01 of 2018. Another 2 out
of 17 elected members of the MWA UI did not meet the requirement as members of the
MWA UI in the element of Lecturer representative and seemed not to be independent,
where Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D is the
Minister of National Development Planning (PPN) or the Head of the National
Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) of the Republic of Indonesia and Sri Mulyani
Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D is the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
- According to the Plaintiffs, the existence of Erick Tohir, Saleh Husin, Prof. Bambang
Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D, and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E.,
M.S., Ph.D at MWA UI is a form of political intervention in the academic realm. The
position of both of them is very closely related to certain political affiliations and
interests so that politicians directly intervene in educational institutions by interfering in
the management of a State University which should be upheld by Political Neutrality.
- One of the violation that The Defendant is bind to is the process of issuing the Decree of
the Minister of Research and Technology No 11566 / M / KP / 2019 is not in accordance
with the provisions in Article 22 Paragraph (3) Government Regulation No. 68 of 2013
concerning the University of Indonesia Statute which reads, "Members of MWA are
appointed and dismissed by the Minister based on the proposal of the University of
Indonesia Academic Senate ". Because of that specific Article, the proposal of the MWA
UI members should have been sent by the University of Indoenesia Academic Senate, not
the Rector
- All.claims made by the Plaintiff are backed up with evidence in the form of photocopies
of letters which have been sufficiently stamped and matched with their comparisons, each

24
 marked P-1 through P-13 but evidence P-8 and P-9 were not submitted . The Plaintiffs
also brought 2 witness and 2 experts to the court as a requirement as mentioned in Article
100 of Law no.5 of 1986.

4. ANALYSIS
4.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT
4.1.1. DISPUTE OBJECT
In this case, the Object of Dispute is the Decree of the Minister of Research and
Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 11566 / M / KP / 2019 Regarding
the Dismissal of Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia
for the 2014-2019 Period and the Appointment of Members of the Board of Trustees
of the University of Indonesia for the Period of Years 2019-2024, dated March 26,
2019.
A case can be referred to as a State Administration case based on the provisions
of Article 1 number 9 of Law No.51 of 2009. An Administration Decree (KTUN) is
a written stipulation issued by a state administration body or official containing
legal actions on state administration based on regulations applicable legislation that
is concrete, individual, and final that causes legal consequences for a person or
private legal entity.
According to Prof. Muchsan from UGM, KTUN is a written stipulation produced
by the State Administration Officer, basing itself on the applicable legislation,
which is concrete, individual and final. If we look at the definition, there are 4 (four)
elements of the State Administrative Decree, namely:
1. Determination in writing;
2. Made by the State Administration Officer;
3. Based on the laws and regulations;
4. Has 3 (three) certain characteristics (concrete, individual and final).

In this case, the Object of Dispute is concrete because in the Decree is not
abstract, but tangible and clearly explicitly stated "the names of the Members of the
Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia 2019-2024 period". It is individual
because it is not intended for the public, but specifically mentions the names of

25
 Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia for the period
2019-2024 as one of the legal subjects therein. And it is final because it no longer
requires approval from certain agencies both horizontal and vertical. Thus the
Object of Dispute has been definitive and has caused legal consequences as Article
1 number (9) of Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning Second Amendment to Law
Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court.

4.1.2. AUTHORITY TO JUDGE

Plaintiffs who file lawsuits need to pay attention to Article 48 of Law No. 5 of
1986 which states that Administrative court only has the authority, examine, decide
and settle state administrative disputes if all administrative efforts that have been
attempted, as stipulated in Chapter II article 2 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court
Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6 of 2018 concerning Guidelines for
Settlement of Government Administration Disputes after taking Administrative
measures mention that the court is authorized to receive, examine, decide upon and
resolve Government administrative disputes after taking administrative efforts.14
According to Article 54 of Law no.5 of 1986 which states that a lawsuit for an
Administrative dispute is submitted to the competent Court whose jurisdiction
covers the Defendant's domicile. In this case it would be the Jakarta State
Administrative Court, whose jurisdiction covers the Defendant’s domicile as
described at the beginning of the Lawsuit. Therefore PTUN Jakarta is authorized to
examine and decide upon disputes as set forth in the Lawsuit.

4.1.3. TIME LIMIT ON FILING THE LAWSUIT

When the administrative efforts that have not been taken or administrative efforts
have been made are not yet available, but the plaintiff must calculate whether the
claim to be filed is still within 90 days as stipulated in Article 55 of Law No. 5 of
1986 or not. Article 55 of Law No.5 of 1986 reads "a lawsuit can be filed only
within a period of ninety days from the time of receipt or announcement of a Bada
Decree or State Administration Officer." These provisions mean counting from the

14
Z.A.Sangadji, S.H., M.H., Kompetensi Badan Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, (Jakarta: Citra
Aditya, 2003).

26
 receipt or announcement of the decision of the State Administration Agency or
Office to be sued15.
In this case, the Dispute Object was issued on March 16 th, 2019. The plaintiffs
submitted an administrative effort in the form of objection to the Disputed Object on
April 22, 2019 to the Ministry of Research and Technology of the Republic of
Indonesia. The objection was corresponding to Article 77 paragraph 1 Law no.30 of
2014 concerning Government Administration. However, after 10 days of the
submission, the Defendant does not continue the objection which makes the plaintiff
assume that their wish was accepted according to Article 77 paragraph 5 of the
prevailing law. The objection was found not to be taken into account by the
Defendant after 16 days that the a quo objection was assumed to be accepted. This
event led to the filing of a lawsuit on the object of dispute on May 31, 2019.
Because the a quo lawsuit was filed within 90 (ninety) days after it was announced,
it was known that the Dispute Object was accepted as stated in the provisions of
Article 55 of the Republic of Indonesia Law No. 5/1986 concerning Jo's
Administrative Court. Chapter V number 3 SEMA No. 2 of 1991 concerning the
Implementation Guidelines for several provisions in Law No. 5 of 1986.

4.1.4. PLAINTIFF’S INTERESTS

Causing legal consequences means causing a change in the atmosphere of existing
legal relations. If it cannot cause a legal effect, then it is not a legal action and
therefore is not a written determination as regulated in Article 1 paragraph 3 of Law
No. 5 of 1986. As a legal action, Written Designation must be able to cause a
change in existing legal relations16
In this case according to Article 53 paragraph 1 of Law no.5 year 1986, where
disadvantages are based on the Administrative Decision from the Ministry of
Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia. The determination of the
members of the MWA UI according to the Object of Dispute has caused a polemic
among the academicians of the University of Indonesia concerning the
15
Indroharto, Usaha Memahami Undang-Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Buku II (Beracara Di
Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara), (Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan, 2005).
16
"Ulasan Lengkap : Ciri-Ciri Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara". 2015. Hukumonline.Com/Klinik.
https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/detail/ulasan/lt5cc25b8e8645e/ciri-ciri-sengketa-tata-usaha-negara/.

27
 independence of the University where it is stated that 2 out of 17 members of the
MWA UI that are elected have political affiliation, where Erick Thohir was the head
of the Jokowi-Maaruf Amin National Campaign Team in the 2019 presidential
election, then Saleh Husein was still listed as the Deputy Chair of the 2015- Hanura
Party 2020 based on the Decree of Menkumham M. HH - 01 AH.11.01 of 2018.
Another 2 out of 17 elected members of the MWA UI did not meet the requirement
as members of the MWA UI in the element of Lecturer representative and seemed
not to be independent, where Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro,
S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D is the Minister of National Development Planning (PPN) or the
Head of the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) of the Republic of
Indonesia and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D is the Minister of Finance of
the Republic of Indonesia.
The existence of Erick Tohir, Saleh Husin, Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri
Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D, and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D at
MWA UI is considered a form of political intervention in the academic realm. The
position of both of them is very closely related to certain political affiliations and
interests so that politicians directly intervene in educational institutions by
interfering in the management of a State University which should be upheld by
Political Neutrality.

4.1.5. POSITA
Posita is also called the Fundamentum Petendi, the part that contains the
argument that describes the relationship that is the basis or description of a lawsuit.
To make a lawsuit, a person must first explain the reasons or propositions so that he
can submit such claims. Therefore, the fundamental document contains a description
of the case or the case of a case.17
In this case, we can analyze that the basis of the lawsuit are as follows:
 Whereas, it is a violation of Article 22 of Government Regulation No. 68
of 2013 concerning the Statutes of the University of Indonesia A. That the
process of issuing Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology No

17
Yahya Harahap, Hukum Acara Perdata, (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2007). P.58

28
 11566 / M / KP / 2019 is not in accordance with the provisions in Article
22 Paragraph (3) Government Regulation No 68 of 2013 concerning the
Statute of the University of Indonesia which reads, "MWA members are
appointed and dismissed by the Minister based on the proposal of the
University of Indonesia's Academic Senate";
 Whereas, Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology No. 11566 /
M / KP / 2019, dated March 26, 2019, was made not at all based on a
proposal from the Academic Senate of the University of Indonesia, but a
letter from the Rector of the University of Indonesia;
 Whereas, the Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology No
11566 / M / KP / 2019 only refers to the University of Indonesia's Rector's
Letter No S244 / UN2.R / PPM.00.00 / 2019 regarding Submission of
names of members of the UI Board of Trustees the period 2019-2024
which cannot be interpreted as a proposal from the UI Academic Senate,
but only informs that there is an election for members of the MWA UI;
 Whereas, the Rector of the University of Indonesia and the Academic
Senate of the University of Indonesia are two separate organs having
respective authorities based on Article 1 number 4 and Article 1 number 5
Government Regulation No. 68 of 2013 concerning the University of
Indonesia's Statute;
 Whereas, if the Defendant considers that only the Rector has the authority
to send letters because of his position as the highest administrative leader
in UI, it is fitting for the attachment of the University of Indonesia
Rector's Letter No S-244 / UN2.R / PPM.00.00 / 2019 to contain a Decree
from the Senate Academic UI regarding the proposed prospective MWA
members, the facts of which were not found in the letter;
 Whereas, based on the explanation above, it can be interpreted clearly and
clearly the Defendant violated Article 22 Paragraph (3) Government
Regulation No. 68 Year 2013 concerning the Statute of the University of
Indonesia;

29
 Whereas, it is a violation of Article 28 paragraph (2) Government
Regulation No. 68 Year 2013 concerning the Statute of the University of
Indonesia
 Whereas, the appointment of Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri
Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S.,
Ph.D. as a member of the UI MWA from the Lecturer element, it is in
conflict with the provisions of Article 23 paragraph (2) PP of the UI
Statute that reads, "Members of the MWA who represent the Lecturer
element as referred to in Article 22 paragraph (2) letter c are selected by
the SA from Lecturers outside the members of the SA who have the
experience and / or expertise needed and have commitment, integrity,
good academic performance, and insight and interest in higher education
";
 Whereas Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P.,
Ph.D. has an Employee Registration Number 196610131999031001 and
has an Active status; C. That Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D. has
an Employee Registration Number and is currently 196208261987032001
and currently has the status "Duty in Other Agencies";
 Whereas, Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P.,
Ph.D. is currently the Minister of Indonesian National Development
Planning and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D. currently is the
Minister of Finance of the Jokowi-JK Work Cabinet for the 2014-2019
period based on the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 83 / P / 2016 concerning the Replacement of Several State
Ministers for the Working Cabinet for the 2014-2019 Period;
 Whereas, Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, SE, MUP,
Ph.D should have the status "Duty in Other Institutions" because it is the
same as Sri Mulyani Indrawati, SE, MS, Ph.D., so he is also currently
serving as Minister, namely as Minister Indonesian National Development
Planning;

30
 Whereas based on Article 7 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 5 Year 2014
concerning State Civil Apparatus it is stated that, "Civil Servants as
referred to in Article 6 letter a are ASN Employees who are appointed as
permanent employees by the Civil Service Guiding Officer and have a
national employee ID number. " So that the Employee Registration
Number of Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D. and Prof. Bambang
Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D. clearly shows that
both are Civil Servants;
 Whereas, based on Article 42 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2)
Government Regulation Number 68 of 2013 concerning the University of
Indonesia Statute states that "UI employees consist of Lecturers and
Education Personnel." and "Employees as referred to in paragraph (1)
consist of: a. employed civil servants; b. permanent employee; and c.
temporary employees." So Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri
Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S.,
Ph.D. is a UI employee in this case as a lecturer who comes from a civil
servant who is employed;
 Whereas, based on article 88 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law
Number 5 of 2014 concerning State Civil Apparatus it is stated that "Civil
Servants are dismissed if appointed as state officials and reactivation is
carried out by the Civil Service Officers.";
 Whereas, based on article 277 paragraph (1) letter e Government
Regulation Number 11 of 2017 concerning Management of Civil Servants
says that "Civil Servants who are appointed as Ministers or ministerial
level are temporarily terminated as Civil Servants" So that the status of
Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D. and
Sri Mulyani Indrawati, SE, MS, Ph.D who are supposed to be UI
Employees in this case as Lecturers from Civil Servants who are
employed, become invalid because both of them are temporarily dismissed
as Civil Servants due to being appointed as Ministers in accordance with
Presidential Decree Republic of Indonesia Number 83 / P / 2016

31
 concerning Replacement of Several State Ministers for Working Cabinet
for the 2014-2019 Period;
 Whereas, with the status of Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri
Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D. and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S.,
Ph.D. those who temporarily stop being lecturers at the University of
Indonesia are both improper and should be representatives of lecturers at
the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia;
 Whereas, by nominating Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri
Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P., Ph.D. and Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S.,
Ph.D. become a Candidate Member of the Board of Trustees of the
University Lecturer Representative who clearly and clearly violates the
mandate of the provisions of Article 23 paragraph (2) Government
Regulation No. 68 of 2013 concerning the Statute of the University of
Indonesia;
 Whereas, it is a violation of General Principles of Good Governance
 Whereas, the Defendant by Decree of the Minister of Research and
Technology No 11566 / M / KP / 2019 has violated the General Principles
of Good Governance Article 10 of Law Number 30 Year 2014 concerning
Government Administration namely the Principle of Legal Certainty and
Accuracy Principle;
 Whereas, in the Rector Letter of the University of Indonesia No S244 /
UN2.R / PPM.00.00 / 2019 concerning Submission of names of UI Board
of Trustees members for the 2019-2024 period under consideration of the
Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology No 11566 / M / KP /
2019, it is stated that the legal basis for the selection of MWA UI
members is Article 40 Paragraph (4) Government Regulation No. 68 of
2013 concerning the Statutes of the University of Indonesia. In Article 40
Paragraph (4) it does not regulate the election of members of the MWA
UI, but rather regulates the budget for carrying out the duties of the UI
Academic Senate which is charged to the UI budget;

32
 Whereas, the Defendant should not follow up on the Rector Letter of the
University of Indonesia No S-244 / UN2.R / PPM. 00. 00/2019 concerning
Submission of names of members of the Board of Trustees of the 2019-
2024 UI who clearly erroneously used the legal basis for selecting
members of the UI MWA;
 Whereas, in the explanation of Article 10 of Law Number 30 Year 2014
concerning Government Administration it is explained that what is meant
by the Principle of Legal Certainty is the principle in the rule of law that
prioritizes the basis of the provisions of the laws and regulations,
propriety, constancy, and justice in every government administration
policy;
 Whereas, based on the explanation of the Legal Certainty Principle, the
Defendant has erroneously used the legal basis for the legislation and has
violated the Principle of Legal Certainty;
 Whereas, in the elucidation of Article 10 of Law Number 30 Year 2014
concerning Government Administration, the definition of Accuracy
Principle is defined as the principle which implies that a decision and / or
action must be based on complete information and documents to support
the legality of stipulation and / or implementation of Decisions and / or
Actions so that the relevant Decisions and / or Actions are prepared
carefully before the Decision and / or Actions are determined and / or
taken;
 Whereas, based on the explanation of the Accuracy Principle, the
Defendant is not careful because in making a decision it is not based on
complete information and documents to support the legality of
determining and / or implementing a Decree and / or Action so that the
Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology No 11566 / M / KP /
2019 was not carefully prepared by the Defendant;
 Whereas, based on the explanation above, it is very clear that the
Defendant violates the Principle of Legal Certainty and Accuracy

33
 Principle regulated in Article 10 of Law Number 30 Year 2014 concerning
Government Administration;

4.1.6. PETITUM
Petitum contains any claims requested by the plaintiff to judge to be granted. In
addition to the main demands, the plaintiff also usually added subside or substitute
demands such as demanding to pay a fine or demanding that a judge's decision be
executed even though there would be resistance later called uitvoerbar bij voorrad.
As additional information, the Supreme Court in SEMA No. 6 of 1975 concerning
Uitvoerbaar bij voorraad on 1 December 1975 instructed the judge not to easily
grant such a ruling. According to Yahya Harahap, so that a lawsuit is legal, in the
sense that it does not contain formal defects, it must include a petitum for the claim
containing the main claim of the plaintiff, in the form of a clear description
mentioning one by one in the end of the lawsuit about what are the principal claims
of the claimant to be declared and is charged to the defendant18
In this case, the Petitum that the Plaintiffs are wishing the judge to grant them are:
1. Grant the plaintiff's claim in full;
2. Declaring null or invalid Decree of the Minister of Research, Technology,
and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 11566 / M /
KP / 2019 Regarding the Dismissal of Members of the Board of Trustees
of the University of Indonesia for the 2014-2019 Period and Appointment
of Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia Period
of the Year 2019-2024, dated 26 March 2019 along with numbers:
3) Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P.,
Ph.D. (Lecturer Representative);
7) Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D. (Lecturer
Representative);
11) Erick Thohir (Community Representative);
15) Saleh Husin (Community Representative);

18
Yahya Harahap, Hukum Acara Perdata, (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2007). P.63

34
 3. Require the Defendants to revoke Decree of the Minister of Research,
Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, Number
11566 / M / KP / 2019 Regarding the Dismissal of Members of the Board
of Trustees of the University of Indonesia for the 2014-2019 Period and
Appointment of Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of
Indonesia for 2019 Period -2024, dated 26 March 2019 along with
numbers:
3) Prof. Bambang Permadi Soemantri Brodjonegoro, S.E., M.U.P.,
Ph.D. (Lecturer Representative);
7) Sri Mulyani Indrawati, S.E., M.S., Ph.D. (Lecturer
Representative);
11) Erick Thohir (Community Representative);
15) Saleh Husin (Community Representative);

4.2. DESCRIPTION ON PARTY’S RESPONSE

4.2.1. PLEAD
In this case, The Defendant has submitted a written answer dated July 24, 2019 in a
public hearing on Wednesday, July 31, 2019 which in essence explains as follows:
 Whereas, the Plaintiff cannot significantly describe the interests or losses
arising from the issuance of the Disputed Object. The plaintiff can only
explain the negative potential that might occur due to the determination of
the four names of the members of the MWA UI;
 Whereas, the Plaintiff's loss as explained above, is clearly based only on
baseless assumptions. The Plaintiff does not have one fact which proves
that the 4 members of the Board of Trustees of UI have caused a polemic
among the UI academic community, have intervened, or have silenced the
Plaintiff. The losses raised by the Plaintiff are more theoretical
hypotheses, and are not supported by empirical facts;
 Whereas, since there is no Plaintiff's interests that have been impaired by
the issuance of the Disputed Object, it is very appropriate if the Panel of
Judges reject the Plaintiff's position and declare this Claims as
unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard);

4.2.2. REPLIK
(Not included in the Court Decision)
4.2.3. DUPLIK

35
 (Not included in the Court Decision)

4.3. DECISION
4.3.1. FORM OF DECISION
The main reason for having court proceedings is to get judge's decision as fair as
possible.19 According to Soedikno Mertokusumo, the judge's decision is a statement
by the judge as an official who is authorized to pronounce his decision at the
hearing and aims to end or settle a case between the parties that litigate. 20 Final
decisions can be qualified into three types, namely condemnatoir decisions,
constitutief decisions, and declaratory decisions.21 Condemnatoir decisions are
decisions that are to punish those who punish the loser by fulfilling their
achievements, making or not doing anything. The constitutief decision is the final
decision that is created by nullifying or creating a legal situation. Whereas a
declaratory decision is a decision whose contents are explained or state what is
legal.
In this case, the Judges has decided that does not see a real present danger or a
potential threat of state financial losses, environmental damage and / or social
conflict, if the decision on the object of the dispute is not delayed until the court
decision is legally binding, then the legal requirement to grant the request to
postpone the decision on the object of the dispute as submitted by the Plaintiffs was
not fulfilled in this case so that the Court is of the opinion that the request for
postponement from the Plaintiffs was declared rejected.
4.3.2. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
In this case the legal considerations based on what the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
has given to the court is explained as follows:

19
Rasaid, M. Nur, Hukum Acara Perdata, (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 1996)
20
Mertokusumo, Sudikno, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia, (Yogyakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta,
2010).
21
Hukum, Informasi, and Jenis-Jenis Negara). 2020. "Jenis-Jenis Putusan Pengadilan Dalam Hukum Acara PTUN
(Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara)". Yuridis.Id. https://yuridis.id/jenis-jenis-putusan-pengadilan-dalam-hukum-acara-
ptunperadilan-tata-usaha-negara/.

36
  Considering, that the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to the Jakarta State
Administrative Court to declare void or invalid against the Decree of the
Minister of Research, Technology and Higher Education Republic of
Indonesia Number: 11566 / M / KP / 2019, Regarding the Dismissal of
Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia Period
Year 2014- 2019 and Appointment of Members of the University Board of
Trustees of the University of Indonesia Period 2019-2024, dated March
26, 2019 (Vide evidence T-1 = P-1);
 Considering, that with regard to the exceptions submitted by the
Defendant and Intervene II Defendant 1, Defendant II Intervention 2 and
Defendant II Intervention 3, according to the Panel of Judges will be
considered first before considering the subject matter of the dispute, as
follows:
 The Plaintiffs Do Not Have Legal Reasons as Plaintiffs. That the Object of
Disputes in the a quo case, Decree of the Minister of Research,
Technology and Higher Education Number 11566 / M / KP / 2016
concerning the Dismissal of Members of the Board of Trustees of the
University of Indonesia for the 2014-2019 Period and Appointment of
Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia for the
2019 Period - 2024, March 26, 2019
 Whereas, the Plaintiffs cannot significantly describe the interests or losses
arising from the issuance of the Disputed Object. The Plaintiffs can only
explain the negative potential that might occur due to the determination of
the four names of the members of the MWA UI;
 Whereas, the Plaintiff's losses as explained above, are clearly based only
on baseless assumptions. The Plaintiffs did not have a single fact which
proved that the 4 members of the UI MWA had caused a polemic among
UI academicians, intervened, or had silenced the Plaintiffs. The losses
raised by the Plaintiffs are more theoretical hypotheses and are not
supported by empirical facts.
4.3.3. DIKTUM

37
Quoting from the Decision:
MENGADILI
I. DALAM PENUNDAAN
- Menolak permohonan penundaan pelaksanaan keputusan objek sengketa
dari Para Penggugat sampai putusan pengadilan berkekuatan hukum tetap;
II.DALAM EKSEPSI
- Menerima eksepsi Tergugat, Tergugat II Intervensi 1, Tergugat II Intervensi
2 dan Tergugat II Intervensi 3 tentang Para Penggugat tidak mempunyai
Kepentingan;
III.DALAM POKOK PERKARA
- Menyatakan gugatan Para Penggugat tidak diterima;
- Menghukum Para Penggugat untuk membayar biaya perkara sebesar
Rp.477.000,00 (Empat Ratus Tujuh Puluh Tujuh Ribu Rupiah);
Demikian diputuskan dalam rapat permusyawaratan Majelis Hakim
Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Jakarta, pada hari Senin, tanggal 2 Desember
2019, oleh kami TAUFIK PERDANA, S.H.M.H sebagai Hakim Ketua Majelis
bersama SUSILOWATI SIAHAAN, S.H, M.H. dan EDI SEPTA
SURHAZA, S.H., M.H., masing-masing sebagai Hakim Anggota. Putusan
tersebut diucapkan dalam sidang yang terbuka untuk umum pada hari Kamis,
tanggal 12 Desember 2019, oleh Majelis Hakim tersebut, dengan dibantu oleh
SRI AMBARWATI, S.H. Panitera Pengganti pada Pengadilan Tata Usaha
Negara Jakarta, dengan dihadiri oleh Para Penggugat, Kuasa Tergugat, Kuasa
Hukum Tergugat II Intervensi 1 sampai dengan Tergugat II Intervensi 3;

Therefore the Plaintiffs are obliged to pay for the case fee as much as
Rp.477.000,00 and the Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology of the
Republic of Indonesia, Number 11566 / M / KP / 2019 Regarding the Dismissal of
Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia for the 2014-2019
Period and the Appointment of Members of the Board of Trustees of the University
of Indonesia for the Period of Years 2019-2024, dated March 26, 2019 is still valid.

38
39
5. CONCLUSION
The Administrative Dispute Case No. 119/G/2019/PTUN.JKT is a dispute between active
students of University of Indonesia, against the Minister of Research and Technology of the
Republic of Indonesia as well as the intervention defendants mentioned in the case above.
The object of dispute in this case is the Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology
of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 11566 / M / KP / 2019 Regarding the Dismissal of
Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia for the 2014-2019 Period
and the Appointment of Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Indonesia for
the Period of Years 2019-2024, dated March 26, 2019. The interest taking place in this case
is that a few members are sconsidered to have certain political affiliations and interests so
that politicians can directly intervene in educational institutions by interfering in the
management of a State University which should be upheld by Political Neutrality. After a
long process of trial and considerations, the decision that outcomes from the proceedings is
that the object of dispute is still valid and the request of the Plaintiff has been fully rejected
by the court.

40
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

F.H. Van der Burg dan G.J.M. Cartigny, Perijinan Yang Melawan Hukum Di Dalam Buku
Kumpulan Hasil Terjemahan Bidang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, (Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung
RI Lingkungan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, 1994).

Indroharto, Usaha Memahami Undang-Undang Tentang Perdadilan Tata Usaha Negara Buku I
(Beberapa Pengertian Dasar Hukum Tata Usaha Negara), (Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan,
2000).

Philipus M. Hadjon, dkk, Pengantar Hukum Adminitrasi Indonesia, (Jogjakarta: Gajah Mada
University Press, 1997).

Mertokusumo, Sudikno, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia, (Yogyakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya
Yogyakarta, 2010).

Rasaid, M. Nur, Hukum Acara Perdata, (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 1996).

Yahya Harahap, Hukum Acara Perdata, (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2007).

Z.A.Sangadji, S.H., M.H., Kompetensi Badan Peradilan Umum dan Peradilan Tata Usaha
Negara, (Jakarta: Citra Aditya, 2003).

JOURNALS

Adliah, Amira. (2019). Perkembangan dan Penerapan Hukum Administrasi Negara di Indonesia

Anggriani, Jum, Hukum Administrasi Negara, Graha Ilmu, Yogyakarta, 2012

Solechan. “Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan Yang Baik Dalam Pelayanan Publik.” Adminitrative

Law & Governance Journal, no. 3 (August 2019).

41
WEBSITES

EKSISTENSI PERADILAN ADMINISTRASI NEGARA (PTUN) DALAM MEWUJUDKAN

SUATU PEMERINTAHAN YANG BAIK (GOOD GOVERNANCE) - Ptun-Denpasar.Go.Id".
2019. Ptun-Denpasar.Go.Id. https://www.ptun-denpasar.go.id/artikel/baca/4 .

“Ulasan Lengkap: Ciri-Ciri Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara.” hukumonline.com/klinik. Accessed

May 15, 2020. https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/detail/ulasan/lt5cc25b8e8645e/ciri-ciri-
sengketa-tata-usaha-negara/.

What We Do | Center For Effective Government". 2015. Foreffectivegov.Org.

https://www.foreffectivegov.org/what-we-do.

Yuridis.id, Oleh Tim. “Jenis-Jenis Putusan Pengadilan Dalam Hukum Acara PTUN (Peradilan
Tata Usaha Negara).” Yuridis.id. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://yuridis.id/jenis-jenis-putusan-
pengadilan-dalam-hukum-acara-ptunperadilan-tata-usaha-negara/.

42