Prinsip Kepastian Hukum Tenggang Waktu Menggugat dalam Gugatan Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara

Abstract

This research is motivated by the lack of uniformity in the interpretation and application of the 90-day time limit stipulated in Article 55 of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts (UU PTUN). The phrase "receipt or announcement" of a State Administrative Decree (KTUN) within that article is interpreted differently by judges across various levels of the state administrative court system, resulting in inconsistent rulings. This lack of uniformity is exacerbated by the absence of clear, standardized guidelines following the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation Number 6 of 2018 (PERMA 6/2018), which mandates the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit with the State Administrative Court (PTUN). Consequently, the certainty of citizens' rights to obtain justice regarding detrimental government decisions is compromised. The research addresses the following issues: First, the current regulation of time limits for filing state administrative lawsuits lacks legal certainty; Second, the regulation of time limits for filing state administrative lawsuits based on the principle of legal certainty; and Third, the prospects for regulating time limits for filing state administrative lawsuits in a manner that ensures legal certainty. This study employs a normative legal research methodology utilizing four approaches: the statute approach, the conceptual approach, the case approach, and the comparative approach. The legal materials utilized include primary sources such as legislation and court rulings and secondary sources, including literature, legal journals, and expert doctrines. The analysis is conducted in a descriptive, evaluative, argumentative, and prescriptive manner. The conclusions of this thesis are as follows: First, the regulation of the time limit for filing administrative lawsuits under Article 55 of the State Administrative Court Law (UU PTUN) lacks legal certainty. The phrase "receipt or announcement" contains semantic ambiguity without a clear operational definition, resulting in divergent interpretations between the formalist approach (calculating from the date the State Administrative Decree/KTUN was issued or announced) and the actual approach (calculating from the moment the aggrieved party actually became aware of the KTUN). This discrepancy is evidenced by the inconsistent jurisprudence found in Supreme Court Decision No. 5 K/TUN/1992 versus Supreme Court Decision No. 330 K/TUN/2001. Furthermore, the absence of specific provisions for third parties and electronic decrees, combined with a lack of synchronization between lawsuit time limits and the administrative appeal mechanisms under Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 6/2018, adds further layers of legal uncertainty. Second, regulations governing lawsuit time limits grounded in the principle of legal certainty must satisfy Lon L. Fuller’s eight principles of the "inner morality of law," particularly regarding the clarity of norms, the absence of contradictory norms, and consistency in application. An ideal regulatory framework requires: (1) Establishing the dies a quo (starting point) based on the aggrieved party's actual knowledge; (2) Specific and proportionate provisions for third parties who do not directly receive the KTUN; (3) Explicit synchronization with the administrative appeal mechanisms under PERMA No. 6/2018; and (4) Provisions addressing electronic decrees. and (5) a clear mechanism for establishing the dies a quo (the starting point for the time limit). Thirdly, the prospect of establishing a legally certain time limit for filing lawsuits can be realized through four avenues of normative reconstruction: a comprehensive revision of Article 55 of the State Administrative Court Law; the issuance of a new Supreme Court Regulation establishing standardized calculation methods; the strengthening of consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence; and the development of an integrated digital notification system within the framework of electronic-based government administration. The recommendations of this research aim to establish legal certainty regarding the time limit for filing lawsuits in the State Administrative Court. (1) The House of Representatives (DPR RI) and the President should immediately undertake a comprehensive revision of Article 55 of the State Administrative Court Law (UU PTUN) by reconstructing the phrase "receipt or announcement" into a new norm that establishes "actual knowledge" as the basis for the dies a quo (start date of the time limit) and integrates a time limit applicable to third parties. (2) The Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia should issue a new Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) establishing standardized technical criteria for calculating time limits superseding PERMA 6/2018 and mandate a uniform legal formulation that adopts the principle of "actual knowledge," along with objective evidentiary indicators, as a compulsory guideline for State Administrative Court judges. (3) The central and regional governments should develop and integrate a digital notification system for State Administrative Decrees (KTUN) based on digital timestamps within the Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE), and mandate the explicit inclusion of information regarding the right to sue and the applicable time limits (mention des voies et délais de recours/Rechtsbehelfsbelehrung) in every issued state administrative decree.