Legal Standing: Unpacking “Interest” in State Administrative Jurisprudence

Legal standing is a fundamental requirement in filing a claim before the State Administrative Court. At the core of this requirement lies the concept of interest, which determines whether a party is entitled to bring an administrative dispute.

Interest in a State Administrative Claim

Referring to the stipulation under Article 1 number 9 of Law Number 51 of 2009 on the Second Amendment of Law Number 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Court (“State Administrative Court Law”) and Article 1 number 7 of Law Number 30 of 2014 on State Administrative (“State Administrative Law”), State Administrative Decision (“Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara/KTUN”) is essentially a written determination issued by State Administration Bodies and/or Officials in the course of state administration that has the potential to give rise to legal consequences for an individual or private legal entity. As an act that carries legal consequences, it frequently occurs that certain relevant parties feel that their interest have been harmed by the issuance of a KTUN.

Article 53 paragraph (1) of the State Administrative Court Law stipulates that a person or civil legal entity that feels that their interests have been harmed by a KTUN can file a written claim with the court containing a demand that the disputed KTUN be declared null and void or invalid.

Read Also: Defining Finality: Exploring the Critical Concept in State Administrative Jurisprudence

The explanation of the Law does not further explain the meaning of “interest”. The explanation adds that only a person or civil legal entity whose ‘interests’ are affected by the legal consequences of the KTUN issued and therefore feels disadvantaged.

This element of “interest” is what serves as the basis for assessing whether a party truly possesses legal standing to file an administrative claim over KTUN that is considered to have harmed them. Therefore, to have a further understanding of how the Administrative Court subsequently assesses and decides on this element of interest in an administrative dispute, will be discussed through the following jurisprudences, evaluating legal standing from various perspectives and viewpoints of the issues.

Various Jurisprudence on Legal Standing

Legal Standing of a Non-Governmental Organization under the Constitutional Court Law

How do we interpret “interest” (legal standing) in a state administrative claim?

Under Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (YLBHI) and Indonesia Corruption Watch v. President of the Republic of Indonesia, Jurisprudence Number 495 K/TUN/2014 jo. 55/B/2014/PT.TUN.JKT jo. 139/G/2013/PTUN-JKT, the Claimants each of whom acted in their standing as a mass organization, in the form of a Non-Governmental Organization (“NGO”), filed a claim against the President of the Republic of Indonesia on the grounds of the issued Object of Dispute, namely a Presidential Decree Number 87/P of 2013, which essentially states the dismissal and appointment of several Constitutional Judges.

Read Also: The Role of an Individuals in Environmental Litigation: Legal Standing in State Administrative Court Jurisprudence

Nevertheless, Defendant, through one of its points of exceptions, essentially stated that the Claimants do not possess legal standing in their capacity as an NGO, in which there are no laws and regulations that stipulate the legal standing of the organizations to exercise their right to file a claim in relation to the appointment of Constitutional Judges. The Claimants are also alleged to not have a direct interest harmed by the issuance of the Object of Dispute, as stipulated under Article 53 paragraph (1) of the State Administrative Court Law.

In this regard, Judex Facti at the first level of court stated that, in order to ascertain the fundamental meaning of an interest, may refer to the development of jurisprudence and doctrine, which essentially provides that interest under state administrative procedural law consists of two meanings, namely:

• First, interests as values or qualities that are protected by law; and
• Second, interests as an objective to be achieved by the process.

It was further mentioned that there is an expansion of the meaning of “interest” in which a claim may be filed on behalf of the public interest or the interest of the people or the community (algemen belang). Thus, in this matter, Judex Facti of the first instance held that the Claimants, as an NGO, possess the legal standing to file the a quo claim. 

Despite the claim being granted in the first instance and the Claimants were deemed to have legal standing, the decision was overturned at the appellate and cassation levels. In addition, Judex Facti at the appellate level through Decision Number 55/B/2014/PT.TUN.JKT states:

“… essentially stated that the definition of interest in the State Administrative Court consists of two meanings:

• Referring to the values that must be protected by law;
  To be considered as having an interest to file a claim, the interest that must be protected by law must be a personal interest (personlijk belang), private in nature (eigen belang), and objectively determinable.
• Referring to its relevance with the decision itself;
  The harm to the interest must be a direct and intended consequence of the official or body that issued the decision, and not a derivative interest;”

Furthermore, Judex Facti argued, “the principle stating ‘poin d’interet poin d ‘action‘ means that proceeding by filing a claim in Court must be based on a certain objective to be achieved, as engaging in a proceeding without any objective serves no benefit to the public interest, rather it only disrupts the government (state administrative body or official) in carrying out its administration.”

In contrast to the first level, Judex Facti on the appeal level emphasizes that the interests involved must be in the Claimants’ own interests, private in nature, and direct. Ultimately, Judex Facti considers that the legal standing in filing the claim did not meet the criteria of being one’s own interest and private in nature, as the Claimant’s interests could not be distinguished from the interests of other parties and were indirect in nature, since the damages could not be determined. The claim was declared as inadmissible.

This decision on appeal was subsequently upheld at the cassation level. Judex Juris considers under Decision Number 495 K/TUN/204, “the Claimants do not have a direct interest that is harmed by the State Administrative Decision of the Object of Dispute;”

Consequences of Civil Court Decision on a Legal Standing

How do we interpret “interest” (legal standing) in a state administrative claim where there has been a permanent civil decision?

Through Wiyanto Halim v. Head of the Tangerang City Land Office, Jurisprudence Number 446 K/TUN/2021 jo. 48/B/2021/PT.TUN.JKT jo. 37/G/2020/PTUN.SRG, this case concerns the decision of the head of the land office regarding the registration of the internal blocking status. The claim demands that the decision be declared as null and void and requires the Defendant [head of the land office] to revoke the decision. As the Claimant in its claim stated its standing as the holder of the five plots of land, which the Claimant claimed to have been harmed by the issuance of the Object of Dispute. The Object of Dispute was an Electronic Decree of the Head of the Tangerang City Land Office in the form of an Internal Block Status Record.

The Defendant’s exception stated that the Claimant does not have a legal standing to file the claim, as the basis of entitlement used by the Claimant, namely the Land Sale and Purchase Deed and the Certificate of Ownership, which both had been annulled by a civil court decision. This is evident, whereas throughout the proceeding, it was found that there had been a final and binding civil court decision stating that the land related to the object of dispute was no longer owned by the Claimant, but was owned by the Defendant II Intervention.

Read Also: The Power of Discretion: Navigating State Administrative Jurisprudence on Environment

The court at the first level, appellate level, and the cassation level, argued that the claim was inadmissible. Whereas at first/previously, Judex Facti in the first level of court grants the Defendant and Defendant II Intervention’s exceptions regarding the Claimant’s legal standing, and therefore declared that the Claimant’s claim is inadmissible, as stated in its consideration, “That on the grounds of a final and binding decision… therefore the Claimant is declared to no longer have the standing in the a quo case;”

Furthermore, in its legal considerations, Judex Juris, in Decision Number 446 KTUN/2021 said:

“That based on the court decision in the civil case that has legal force, the Cassation Applicant/Claimant sued in a civil case against one of them, Cassation Respondent II/ Defendant II Intervention, stating that the land on the disputed object certificate belongs to Cassation Respondent II/Intervention Defendant II, so that the Cassation Applicant/Claimant no longer has a legal interest in the disputed land as referred to in Article 53 paragraph (2) of Law Number 9 of 2004.”

The legal consideration provided above, both by the Judex Facti and Judex Juris, have justified the exception argued by the Defendant. As the Claimant in this case no longer has the legal standing, considering that the underlying rights that supposedly serve as the basis for filing a claim, namely the Land Sale and Purchase Deed and the Certificate of Ownership has been previously annulled by a civil court decision that has a permanent legal force.

Legal Standing of an Unauthorized Organization’s Administrators

How do you interpret “interest” (legal standing) in a state administrative claim by an organization’s administrators that has not received approval from an authorized official?

In H.A.M Nurdin Halid v. Directorate General of Legislation, Ministry of Law and Human Rights, Jurisprudence Number 487 K/TUN/2021 jo. 61/B/2021/PT.TUN.JKT jo. 160/G/2020/PTUN.JKT, the Claimant declares its position as the Chairman of the Indonesian Cooperative Council (“Dewan Koperasi Indonesia/DEKOPIN”) for the 2019-2024 term based on the 2019 DEKOPIN National Congress.

The Object of Dispute was a Letter of the Director General of Legislation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights concerning Legal Opinion addressed to the Chairman of DEKOPIN, which entered this case as Defendant II Intervention. The Claimant argued that the Object of Dispute has caused harm to the Claimant by concluding that the proper election of the Chairman of DEKOPIN for the 2019-2024 term was the National Congress of DEKOPIN that elected Defendant II Intervention. As it was stated that the election of Defendant II Intervention was in accordance with Presidential Decree Number 6 of 2011 on the Ratification of the Amendments to the Articles of Association of the Indonesian Cooperative Council (“Presidential Decree 6/2011”).

Read Also: Substantial Defects in State Administrative Law Jurisprudence

About the Claimant’s claim, the Defendant and Defendant II Intervention challenged the Claimant’s legal standing, stating that the Claimant lacked the legal standing to file the a quo claim. The Defendant and Defendant II Intervention essentially argued that the Claimant’s claim to the position of Chairman based on the amendment to the articles of association was groundless. This was because, pursuant to the Presidential Decree 6/2011, the amendments to the articles of association used by the Claimant as the basis of its authority must first be ratified by a Presidential Decree in order to obtain legal force.

Judex Facti in the first instance held that the Claimant had an interest and legal standing in filing the claim, stating that: “The Claimant has a direct connection to the letter content of the object of dispute letter, as its position is mentioned in the letter of the object of dispute.”

Nevertheless, at the appellate level, the first level of court decision was overturned, with the Defendant II Intervention’s exception regarding legal standing being upheld, and was further affirmed at the cassation level. The Judex Juris in its legal considerations, through Decision Number 487 K/TUN/2021, said:

“That the amendment to the Articles of Association/Bylaws (AD/ART) of the Indonesian Cooperative Council (Dekopin) resulting from the National Conference used by the Claimant to gain legitimacy as the General Chairperson for the third term (Term of Service 2019-2024) has not been approved by the Authorized Official as required by Article 59 of Law Number 25 of 1992 on Cooperatives. Therefore, the Claimant does not have legal standing to question the validity of the Object of Dispute.”

Based on the legal considerations above, Judex Juris emphasizes that, since the legal basis for the claim and the declaration of invalidity of the object of dispute, namely the certificate of ownership, was only acquired by the Claimant after the issuance of the said certificate, the Claimant was deemed to have no interest (legal standing).

Implications of Legal Standing on Subsequently Issued Land Rights

Can the underlying land rights issued later (after the disputed object certificate is issued) invalidate a person’s “interest” (legal standing) to claim?

The legal case in Rikard Bagun v. Head of West Manggarai District Land Office, Jurisprudence Number 477 K/TUN/2021 jo. 51/B/2021/PT.TUN.SBY jo. 14/G/2020/PTUN.KPG concerns a claim to declare null and void or invalid a certificate of ownership located in West Manggarai, East Nusa Tenggara Province, issued by the Head of West Manggarai District Land Office.

Whereas the Object of Dispute is a Certificate of Ownership under the name of Defendant II Intervention. The Claimant’s claim essentially asserted that the issuance of the Object of Dispute, which was issued over the Claimant’s land, had caused harm to the Claimant. The Claimant argues that it had previously acquired the land from the customary landholder in 2016 through a traditional sale and purchase transaction, which had been formalized through a Deed of Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 30 December 2019 and a Statement of Release of Land Rights dated 9 January 2020

In response to the claim, the Defendant and Defendant II Intervention argued that the Claimant did not have a legal standing as a Claimant and clearly lacked a legal basis and factual grounds sufficient to establish and demonstrate a legal relationship between the Claimant and the land over which the Object of Dispute was issued.

Judex Facti at the first instance granted the Claimant’s claim and declared that the Object of Dispute is null and void, holding that the Claimant had an interest in filing the a quo claim because the Claimant had purchased the customary land. Thus, the issuance of the a quo Object of Dispute had resulted in the Claimant losing the legal relationship over the land.

The claim was granted at the first level but subsequently overturned at the appellate level. Whereas, it was found at the appellate level that the basis of the Claimant’s claim (namely the Deed of Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Statement of Release of Land Rights) was in fact, issued only after the Object of Dispute.

Accordingly, based on these considerations, the Judex Facti at the appellate level overturned the first instance decision and declared that the Claimant did not have legal standing to file the claim, stating:

“In consideration, that if the Claimant/Appellee feels that their civil interest has been harmed, its resolution may be resolved through another judicial forum;”

The Decision by the Surabaya State Administrative High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Judex Juris in Decision Number 477 K/TUN/2021 considers:

“That the certificate of the object of dispute was issued on March 8 2018, while the Appellant/Claimant argues that the person concerned acquired a plot of land in the certificate of the object of dispute based on the legal basis of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 30 December 2019, and a statement of release of rights to the land dated 9 January 2020.”

“That because the underlying rights used as the basis for the claim was only issued after the certificate of the disputed object was issued by the Respondent of Cassation I/Defendant, thus the Applicant of Cassation/Claimant does not yet have an interest in filing a claim as stipulated in Article 53 paragraph (1) of Law Number 9 of 2004.”

Based on the legal considerations above, Judex Juris emphasizes that, since the legal basis for the claim and the declaration of invalidity of the object of dispute, namely the certificate of ownership, was only acquired by the Claimant after the issuance of the said certificate, the Claimant was deemed to have no interest (legal standing).

Implication of Legal Standing on Ownership Status Determined by the Public Court (1)

Can the status of land ownership that has been canceled based on a court decision in a public court that has permanent legal force cancel a person’s “interest” (legal standing) to question other matters related to the land?

Under Ni Made Karmi v. Minister of Environment and Forestry, Jurisprudence Number 145 PK/TUN/2021 jo. 380 K/TUN/2020 jo. 7/B/2020/PT.TUN.JKT jo. 98/G/2019/PTUN-JKT, The Claimant filed a claim against Decree of the Ministry of Forestry on the Designation of the Sekaroh Forest Group covering several thousand hectares, which was issued by the Defendant in its capacity as the Minister of Environment and Forestry.

In response to the Claimant’s claim, one of the Defendant’s exceptions contested the Claimant’s legal standing in filing the claim. Nevertheless, the claim was held inadmissible by the first level of court in October 2019 and upheld at the appellate level in February 2020.

Whereas Judex Facti of the first instance previously stated, that for an individual or a civil legal entity to exercise the right to file a claim in a dispute, must be demonstrated that there is indeed an interest directly harmed by the issuance of the contested KTUN. As also stated in its considerations:

“… according to the Court, the term interest refers to a direct legal interest, namely an interest based on the existence of a legal relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant or a legal relationship with the decision of the object of dispute, the issuance of which is deemed to have caused harm to the Claimant.”

Concerning this matter, Judex Facti of the first instance stated that it was found that both the Claimant and Defendant each possessed a legal basis for the land ownership. However, it was also found that the Certificate of Ownership used by the Claimant as the basis for filing the claim had been nullified, as it had been annulled by the Court. Therefore, the Claimant was declared to no longer have an interest in filing the claim.

This decision was subsequently upheld, with the cassation level maintaining the decision of the two lower courts. As stated by the Judex Juris in its legal considerations through Decision Number 380 K/TUN/2020, it essentially held that the Claimant no longer possessed a legal interest (legal standing) to file the claim because the basis of the title for filing the claim, including the land register, was classified as evidence in a criminal case that had obtained permanent legal force and was returned to the land office for the cancellation of the certificate.

“That in accordance with the principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur and the priciple of poin d’interes poin d’action, the Claimant no longer has any interest in disputing the validity of the a quo Object of Dispute before the State Administrative Court, based on a decision that has obtained permanent legal force, namely the corruption court ruling, which has terminated the legal relationship between the Claimant and the land under the Certificate of Ownership… under the name of the Claimant;

That accordingly, this eliminates the Claimant’s interests in defending (maintaining) the ownership of the land under the Certificate of Ownership…, thereby resulting in the Claimant having no interest to file a claim…”

Based on the above legal considerations, despite there are two courts with different jurisdictions, as long as the basis of title serving as the grounds of the claim is no longer valid or has been annulled, such basis can no longer be used as grounds to challenge the validity of an object of dispute. In other words, the Claimant has lost its legal interest (legal standing) to bring the claim.

The decision was also subsequently upheld at the Judicial Reconsideration in Decision Number 145 PK/TUN/2021, which essentially reaffirmed that the Claimant no longer had any interest over the land under the referred Certificate of Ownership.

Implication of Legal Standing on Ownership Status Determined by the Public Court (2)

Can the status of land ownership that has been canceled based on a court decision in a public court that has permanent legal force cancel a person’s “interest” (legal standing) to question other matters related to the land?

This legal case under I Gusti Bagus Ari Santosa v. Minister of Environment and Forestry, Jurisprudence 

Number 142 PK/TUN/2021 jo. 373 K/TUN/2020 jo. 8/B/2020/PT.TUN.JKT jo. 99/G/2019/PTUN.JKT concerns a claim to the annulment of the Decree of the Minister of Forestry concerning the Designation of the Sekaroh Forest Group, which is similar to the legal case previously discussed. The Claimant essentially argues that the issuance of the Object of Dispute had caused harm to the Claimant. As the Claimant asserting its position as the rightful owner of the a quo plot of land over which the Object of Dispute was issued.

Regarding this matter, the State Administrative Court declared the claim inadmissible in October 2019 and the decision was upheld at the appellate level in March 2020. Previously, Judex Facti at the first level of court assessed the Claimant’s standing in filing the claim. In essence, it is stated that although the Claimant had previously held a legal basis over the land on which the Object of Dispute was issued, such basis in the form of a Certificate of Ownership had been severed as it had previously been annulled by the court. Therefore, it was declared that the Claimant did not possess a legal interest in filing the claim.

In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld both of the lower court decisions. As Judex Juris in Decision Number 373 K/TUN/2020 considered:

“That the Public Prosecutor at the District Attorney’s Office … returned one of the Land Ownership Certificates (SHM) … to the Land Office … to cancel the certificate. So that the legal relationship between the Claimant and a plot of land with ownership rights … which was used as the basis for the Claimant’s interest in filing a claim in this case has been severed.”

“That accordingly, the Claimant no longer has a legal interest harmed by the issuance of the decision of the object of dispute… thus the Claimant’s claim does not meet the formal requirements of a claim.”

Similar to the legal considerations in the previous discussion, Judex Juris held that the Claimant no longer possessed a legal interest (legal standing) because the basis of title used as the ground for filing the claim, which in this case is the Certificate of Ownership, had been annulled pursuant to the public court decision.

Subsequently, at the Judicial Reconsideration level, this decision was reaffirmed, which essentially held that the Claimant no longer had any legal rights over the land on which the Object of Dispute was issued, as the civil legal relationship between the Claimant and the said plot of land had been severed due to its revocation by the court.

Principals of Legal Standing

Legal standing is a fundamental basis that must be possessed by any party filing a claim before the State Administrative Court, as it determines whether an individual or legal entity truly has the right to bring a claim in an administrative dispute. In assessing this matter, as can be seen from the aforementioned jurisprudence, despite issues concerning legal standing may be based on various grounds and considerations, there is an essential element consistently used by the Panel of Judges as a benchmark in evaluating the claimant’s interest and/or legal standing. Ultimately, any party filing a claim before the State Administrative Court must be able to prove the existence of a concrete and relevant interest in relation to the object of dispute that forms the basis of the claim.

---

Author

---

Co-authored

---

---

Sources:

• Law Number 51 of 2009 on the Second Amendment of Law Number 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Court.
• Law Number 30 of 2014 on State Administrative.
• Presidential Decree Number 6 of 2011 on the Ratification of the Amendments to the Articles of Association of the Indonesian Cooperative Council.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 142 PK/TUN/2021.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 145 PK/TUN/2021.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 495 K/TUN/2014.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 380 K/TUN/2020.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 373 K/TUN/2020.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 446 K/TUN/2021.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 487 K/TUN/2021.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 477 K/TUN/2021.
• Jakarta State Administrative High Court Decision Number 55/B/2014/PT.TUN.JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative High Court Decision Number 7/B/2020/PT.TUN.JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative High Court Decision Number 8/B/2020/PT.TUN.JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative High Court Decision Number 48/B/2021/PT.TUN.JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative High Court Decision Number 61/B/2021/PT.TUN.JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative High Court Decision Number 51/B/2021/PT.TUN.SBY.
• Jakarta State Administrative Decision Number 139/G/2013/PTUN-JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative Decision Number 98/G/2019/PTUN-JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative Decision Number 99/G/2019/PTUN.JKT.
• Serang State Administrative Decision Number 37/G/2020/PTUN.SRG.
• Jakarta State Administrative Decision Number 160/G/2020/PTUN.JKT.
• Kupang State Administrative Decision Number 14/G/2020/PTUN.KPG.