Controversy on the Absolute Competency of Civil Courts in Investigating Unlawful Actions Committed by the Government In Indonesia

Abstract

Objective: This research analyses the laws and regulations that apply to courts in adjudicating unlawful acts (torts) the Government commits.   Methods: This research uses a socio-legal approach to prepare a normative juridical study complemented by an analysis of legal sociological theories.   Conclusions: The research results show that, as stated in Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2016, there has been a paradigm shift. After the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, there has been a shift in mindset—authority to adjudicate unlawful acts (torts) committed by the Government against State Administration. However, in practice, citizens cannot fully obtain justice when resolving cases of illegal acts committed by the Government in the State Administrative Court. There are several reasons, such as special administrative requirements for the State Administrative Court, limits on compensation, authority to adjudicate, and limits on the power and implementation of decisions of the State Administrative Court (abbreviated as PTUN). These limitations force justice seekers to seek resolution through civil courts if the Government commits unlawful acts. The problem with resolving unlawful acts committed by the Government is how civil courts have absolute competence in adjudicating illegal acts. Unlawful acts committed by the Government can be actions that impact administrative matters or public affairs. Therefore, this unlawful act is tried in the state administrative court. Meanwhile, an unlawful act, namely a form of action that harms oneself, property, and the wealth of an individual or legal entity, is tried in civil court. Therefore, civil courts have absolute authority to try unlawful acts committed by the Government if the Government's actions impact the victim's civil case, such as personal losses, property, and wealth of citizens.