Introduction
The state administrative judiciary plays an important role in enabling citizens to protect their rights by providing a platform to challenge government policies through administrative claims. Based on the State Administrative Judiciary Law (Law No. 5 of 1986 as amended by Law No. 9 of 2004 and last amended by Law No. 51 of 2009 concerning the State Administrative Judiciary) stipulates that the administrative judiciary is authorized to examine, decide, and resolve disputes in the field of State Administration. Article 1 of the State Administrative Judiciary Law defines administrative dispute as a dispute which occurs within the administrative sector between a person or civil legal entity with an Administrative Body or Official, either in the central or regional sector, as a result of the issuance of an Administrative Decree. Then the respective law defines an Administrative Decree as a written stipulation issued by an Administrative Body or Officials, which contains Administrative legal acts based on prevailing laws and regulations, which are concrete, individual, and final, which establishes legal effect upon a person or civil legal entity.
The lodging of an administrative claim requires legal standing as a basis for preserving the rights affected by the issuance of an Administrative Decree.
This article will discuss the legal concept of legal standing that must be complied with by the claimant as one of the formal requirements of the claim.

Discussion
Article 53 paragraph (1) of the State Administrative Judiciary Law stipulates that a party who has legal standing in filing a claim is a person or civil legal entity who feels that an Administrative Decree has harmed their interests, has the right to demand that the disputed decree be declared null or invalid, with or without a claim for compensation/rehabilitation. The reasons that may be used in an administrative claim are:

  1. The challenged Administrative Decree is contrary to the prevailing laws and regulations; and
  2. The challenged Administrative Decree is contrary to the good governance principles.

The provision in Article 53 paragraph (1) requires the existence of a harmed interest as the basis for filing a claim. This is in line with the principle of “point d’interet’ point, d’ action“. Sudikno Mertokusumo states that the principle of “point d’interet, point d’ action” means that anyone who has an interest may file a claim.1 The interests in this case refer to direct legal interests, i.e. interests that are based on the existence of legal relationships and the impacts arising from these legal relationships.2
Then Indroharto in his book titled “Usaha Memahami Undang-Undang tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara” explains the interests concerning the filing of administrative claims, which according to him, has two meanings, namely:

  1. Points to a value that should be protected by law; and
  2. The purposes of the process, meaning what is to be achieved by filing the respective claim.
Read Also  The Consequences of the Existence of Civil Dispute Aspect in an Administrative Claim

Regarding the interests that refer to the value that should be protected by the law, it is subdivided into two factors, namely: i) interests in relation to the person entitled to claim; and ii) interests in relation to the Administrative Decree that is being challenged.3 The interests in relation to those who are entitled to claim can be seen from:4

  1. The claimant must have his own interest in bringing the claim, he cannot act on his behalf if it is actually about the interests of another person, because if he wants to proceed for the benefit of another person then he needs a power of attorney;
  2. The interest must be personal, with the claimant’s interest in bringing the claim clearly distinguishable from the interests of others;
  3. The interest must be direct; and
  4. The interest can be objectively measured in terms of both extent and intensity.

Regarding interests in relation to the Administrative Decree that is being challenged, the claimant must be able to show that the challenged Administrative Decree has directly harmed his rights.5 While related to the interests of the process, the objectives to be achieved by proceeding can be detached from the interests that must be protected by the law.6
Furthermore, there is a confirmation conveyed by Phillipus Hadjon et al in his book titled “Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Negara” which states that The claimant has an interest if there is a causal relationship between the Administrative Decree and the losses or interests, meaning that the losses are a direct result of the issuance of the administrative decree.7
Departing from the jurist’s opinion above, there are several jurisprudences as examples of the urgency of the claimant’s legal standing in an administrative claim, including:

  1. Decision Number 26/G/2020/PTUN.Mtr
    In this case, the claimants argued that the issuance of a certificate of ownership (SHM) on a parcel of land issued by the Head of the East Lombok Land Office (the Defendant) had harmed the claimants and that the claimants had an interest in the disputed object based on inheritance from their descendants. In the relief sought, the claimants requested to revoke the certificate of ownership on the disputed object and declare the certificate invalid. As the trial progressed, evidence and facts were found that the land that was the object of the dispute had been sold by the heirs in 1984 and then the Defendant II Intervention (the owner of the land and certificate of ownership) obtained rights to the object of the dispute based on a lawful transaction. The Panel of Judges in its consideration stated that the claimants had no interests that were harmed by the issuance of the disputed object, either in terms of values that must be protected by law or in terms of the purpose of a process. The claimants do not have legal standing because there is no legal relationship between the claimants and the disputed object and thus, they do not have an interest that is harmed. The lack of legal standing makes the claimant’s claim inadmissible.
  1. Decision Number 66/G/2021/PTUN.Mdn and Decision Number 477 K/TUN/2021
    This first instance and cassation decisions have a similar result in relation to legal standing. The claimants in the two decisions argued that the issuance of the disputed object (certificate of ownership/SHM) had violated their rights and harmed their interests. They argued that the disputed object had encroached upon their land, which they owned based on the certificate of ownership. Then during the examination in court, it was found that the certificate of ownership of the two claimants was issued only after the disputed object was issued. The Panel of Judges in both decisions held the same opinion, they stated that since the claimants received their certificate after the disputed object was issued, they did not have an interest in the disputed object. This meant they did not have the legal standing to file a claim. Both decisions were declared inadmissible, and the cassation application were rejected.  In this case, the two claimants do not have an interest because they did not suffer any direct loss from the issuance of the disputed object. This is because their rights (certificate of ownership) were only issued after the disputed object was already issued.
Read Also  Amendment of DKI Jakarta Governor Regulation on the Encouragement of Owned Condominium Management

 Closing
Legal standing plays a crucial role in the process of filing an administrative claim. Based on the three jurisprudences above, the non-fulfillment of the interest aspect causes the absence of legal standing to file a claim, and then the absence of legal standing always leads to the inadmissibility of the administrative claim. The consistency of the judge’s decision in deciding administrative cases that do not have legal standing is reasonable as the principle of “point d’interet, point d’action” which means that if there is no interest, there is no claim.

Irwansyah Dhiaulhaq

Sources

  1. Soedikno Mertokusumo, “Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia”, 2006, Yogyakarta: Liberty, Page 21.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Indroharto, “Usaha Memahami Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara”, 1991, Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan, Page 181.
  4. Ibid, Page 182-183.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Philipus Hadjon, dkk, “Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia”, 1995, Yogyakarta, Page 316.