Kamis, 04 Juni 2009

Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik (AAUPB)

A. Sejarah Terbentuknya AAUPB

Sejak dianutnya konsepsi welfare staat dan meninmbulkan adanya kekuasaan freies Ermessen, timbulah suatu kekhawatiran dari warga Negara atas terjadinya kesewenang-wenangan oleh pemerintah. Oleh karena itu pada tahun 1946 pemerintah belanda membuat suatu komisi yang diketuai oleh De Monchy, Komisi ini selanjutnya disebut dengan komisi de Monchy. Komisi ini bertujuan untuk memikirkan dan meneliti beberapa alternative untuk meningkatkan perlindungan hukum dari tindakan pemerintah yang menyimpang. Pada tahun 1950 komisi De Monchy kemudian melaporkan hasil penelitiannya tentang ‘ verhoodgde rechtsbescherming’ dalam bentuk algemene beginselen van behorlijk bestuur atau dapat disebut AAUPL. Hasil penelitian komisi ini tidak seluruhnya disetujui pemerintah oleh karena itu komisi ini pada akhirnya dibubarkan dan dibentuk komisi yang baru, komisi ini bernama komisi van de Greenten dan komisi ini pun pada akhirnya dibubarkan juga. Dibubarkannya ke dua komisi diatas disebabkan karena pemerintah belanda sendiri pada waktu itu tidak sepenuh hati dalam upaya meningkatkan perlindungan hukum warga negaranya. Meskipun demikian ternyata hasil penelitian De Monchy ini digunakan dalam pertimbangan putusan-putusan Raad van State dalam perkara administrasi. Dengan kata lain walaupun AAUPL ini tidak mudah dalam memasuki wilayah birokrasi tetapi lain halnya dalam bidang peradilan.

B. Pengertian AAUPB

Pemahaman mengenai AAUPB ini tidak hanya dapat dilihat dari segi kebahasaan saja tetapi juga dari sejarahnya hal ini disebabkan kerena azas ini timbul dari sejarah juga. Dengan bersandar pada kedua konteks ini, AAUPB dapat dipahami sebagai asas-asas umum yang dijadikan dasar dan tatacara dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan yang layak, yang dengan cara demikian penyelenggaraan pemerintahan menjadi baik, sopan , adil, dan terhormat, bebas dari kesaliman, pelanggaran peraturan tindakan penyalahgunaan wewenang dan tindakan sewenang-wenang. (Ridwan HR, Hukum administrasi Negara, hal 247)

Selain itu Jazim Hamidi juga memberikan definisi AAUPB dari hasil penelitiannya yaitu:

a. AAUPL merupakan nilai-nilai etik yang hidup dan berkembang dalam lingkungan hukum administrasi Negara

b. AAUPL berfungsi sebagai pegangan bagi paras pejabat administrasi Negara dalam menjalankan fungsinya, merupakan alat uji bagi hakim administrasi dalam menilai tindakan administrasi Negara (yang berwujud penetapan/beschikking) dan sebagai dasar pengajuan gugatan bagi pihak penggugat.

c. Sebagian besar dari AAUPB masih merupakan asas-asas yang tidak tertulis, masih abstrak, dan dapat digali dalam praktik kehidupan di masyarakat

d. Sebagian asas yang lain sudah menjadi kaidah hukum tertulis dan terpencar dalam berbagai peraturan hukum positif.

C. AAUPB di Indonesia

Pada mulanya keberadaan AAUPB ini di Indonesia diakui secara yuridis formal sehingga belum memiliki kekuatan hukum formal. Ketika pembahasan RUU No. 5 Tahun 1986 di DPR, fraksi ABRI mengusulkan agar asas-asas itu dimasukan sebagai salah satu gugatan terhadap keputusan badan/pejabat tata usaha Negara. Akan tetapiputusan ini ditolak oleh pemerintah dengan alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Ismail selaku selaku Menteri Kehakiman saat itu. Alasan tersebut adalah sbb:

“Menurut hemat kami, dalam praktik ketatanegaraan kita maupun dalam Hukum Tata Usaha Neagara yang berlaku di Indonesia, kita belum mempunyai criteria tentang algemene beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur tersebut yang berasal dari negeri Belanda. Pada waktu ini kita belum memiliki tradisi administrasi yang kuat mengakar seperti halnya di negara-negara continental tersebut. Tradisi demikian bisa dikembangkan melalui yurisprudensi yang kemudian akan menimbulkan norma-norma. Secara umum prinsip dari Hukum Tata Usaha Negara kita selalu dikaitkan dengan aparatur pemerintahan yang bersih dan berwibawa yang konkretisasi normanya maupun pengertiannya masih sangat luas sekali dan perlu dijabarkan melalui kasus-kasus yang konkret” (Ridwan HR, Hukum Administrasi Negara, hal 253)

Selain itu tidak dicantumkannya AAUPB dalam UU PTUN bukan berarti eksistensinya tidak diakui sama sekali, karena seperti yang terjadi di belanda AAUPB ini diterapkan dalam praktik peradilan terutama dalam PTUN. Kepustakaan berbahasa Indonesia belum banyak membahas asas ini dan kalaupun ada pembahasan itupun hampir sama karena sumbernya terbatas. Prof. Kuntjoro Purbopranoto dalam bukunya yang berjudul ‘Beberapa Catatan Hukum Tata Pemerintahan dan Peradilan Administrasi Negara’ mengetengahkan 13 asas yaitu:

1. Asas kepastian hukum

2. asas keseimbanagn

3. Asas kesamaan

4. Asas bertindak cermat

5. Asas motivasi untuk setiap putusan pangreh

6. Asas jangan mencampurkan adukan wewenang

7. Asas permainan yang layak

8. Asas keadilan atau kewajaran

9. Asas menanggapi penghargaan yang wajar

10. Asas meniadakan akibat-akibat suatu keputusan yang batal

11. Asas perlindungan atas pandangan hidup

12. Asas kebijaksanaan

13. Asas penyelenggaraan kepentingan umum (Philipus M. Hadjon, Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia, Hal 279)

Sebenarnya AAUPB ini dpat digunakan dalam praktik peradilan di Indonesia karena memiliki sandaran dalam Pasal 14 ayat 1 UU No. 14 Tahun 1970 tentang Kekuasaan Pokok Kehakiman ynag pada initinya menyebutkan bahwa hakim tidak boleh menolak suatu perkara dengan alasan bahw hukum tidak atau kurang jelas. Selain itu pada Pasal 27 ayat 1 UU No. 14 Tahun 1970 ditegaskan bahwa hakim dapat menggali, mengikuti, dan memahami nilai-nilai hukum ynag hidup di dalam masyarakat. Dengan adanya ketentuan pada pasal-pasal di atas maka AAUP mempunyai peluang digunakan dalam proses peradilan administrasi di Indonesia. Seiring berjalannya waktu maka AAUPB ini akhirnya dimuat dalam UU No. 28 Tahun 1999 tentang Penyelenggaraan Negara yang Bersih dan Bebas dari korupsi, Kolusi, dan Nepotisme (KKN). Dalam Pasal 23 UU No. 28 Tahun 1999 ini disebutkan beberapa asas umum penyelenggaraan Negara yaitu sbb:

1. Asas kepastian hukum

yaitu asas dalam Negara hukum yang mengutamakan landasan peraturan perundang-undangan, kepatutan dan keadilan dalam setiap kebijakan dalam penyelenggaraan Negara.

2. Asas tertib penyelenggaran Negara

Yaitu asas yang menjadi landasan keteraturan, keserasian dan keseimbangan dalam pengendalian penyelenggaraan Negara

3. Asas kepentingan umum

Yaitu asas yang mendahulukan kesejahteraan umum dengan cara yang aspiratif, akomodatif, dan selektif

4. Asas keterbukaan

Yaitu asas yang membuka diri terhadap hak masyarakat untuk memperoleh informasi yang benar, jujur, dan tidak diskriminatif tentang penyelenggaraan Negara dengan tetap memperhatikan perlindungan atas hak asasi pribadi, golongan, dan rahasia Negara

5. Asas profesionalitas

Yaitu asas yang mengutamakan keahlian yang berlandaskan kode etik dan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku

6. Asas akuntabilitas

Yaitu asas yang menentukan bahwa setiap kegiatan dan hasilakhir dari setiap kegiatan penyelenggara Negara harus dapat dipertanggungjawabkan kepada masyarakat atau rakyat sebagai pemegang kedaulatan tertinggi Negara sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku

Setelah adanya UU No. 9 Tahun 2004 tentang Perubahan atas UU No. 5 Tahun 1986 tentang PTUN. Berdasarkan Pasal 53 ayat 2 poin a disebutkan: “Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara yang digugat itu bertentangan dengan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik”, dan dalam penjelasannya disebutkan “Yang dimaksudkan dengan AAUPB adalah meliputi atas kepastian hukum, tertib penyelenggaraan Negara, keterbukaan, proporsionalitas, profesionalitas, dan akuntabilitas sebagaimana dimaksud dalam UU No. 28 Tahun 1999. di samping itu dalam UU No. 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah, AAUPB tersebut dijadikan asas dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan daerah, sebagaimana yang tercantum dalam dalam Pasal 20 ayat 1 yang berbunyi:

“Penyelenggaraan pemerintahan berpedoman pada Asas Umum Penyelenggaraan Negara yang terdiri atas: asas kepastian hukum, asas tertib penyelenggara negara, asas kepentingan umum, asas keterbukaan, asas proporsionalitas, asas profisionalitas asas akuntabilitas asas evisiensi, dan asas evektivitas”

Daftar pustaka

Philipus M. Hadjon. 2008. Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press

Ridwan HR. 2008. Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers

L A W


Law is a system of rules, enforced through a set of institutions used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience, politics, economics and society. Law serves as the foremost social mediator in relations between people. Writing in 350 BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual."[4]Law consists of a wide variety of separate disciplines. Contract law regulates binding agreements which may relate to everything from civil purchase to trading on derivatives markets. Property law defines rights and obligations related to the transfer and title of personal and real property. Trust law applies to assets held for investment and financial security, while Tort law allows claims for compensation an individual or their property is injured or harmed. If the harm is criminalised in penal code, criminal law offers means by which the state can prosecute the perpetrator. Constitutional law provides a framework for the creation of law, the protection of human rights and the election of political representatives. Administrative law regulates the activities the administrative agencies of government, while International law governs affairs between sovereign nation states in activities ranging from trade, environmental regulation or military action.

Legal systems elaborate rights and responsibilities in a variety of ways. A basic distinction is generally made between civil law jurisdictions and systems using common law. In some countries, religion informs the law. Scholars investigate the nature of law through many perspectives, including legal history and philosophy, or social sciences such as economics and sociology. The study of law raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, liberty and justice. "In its majestic equality", said the author Anatole France in 1894, "the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."[5] The central institutions for interpreting and creating law are the three main branches of government, namely an impartial judiciary, a democratic legislature, and an accountable executive. To implement and enforce the law and provide services to the public, a government's bureaucracy, the military and police are vital. While all these organs of the state are creatures created and bound by law, an independent legal profession and a vibrant civil society inform and support their progress.

Legal subjects

All legal systems deal with similar issues and behaviors, but each country categorises and identifies its legal standards and principals in different ways. A common distinction is that between "public law" (a term related closely to the state, and including constitutional, administrative and criminal law), and "private law" (which covers contract, tort and property).[6] In civil law systems, contract and tort fall under a general law of obligations, while trusts law is dealt with under statutory regimes or international conventions. International, constitutional and administrative law, criminal law, contract, tort, property law and trusts are regarded as the "traditional core subjects",[7] although there are many further disciplines which may be of greater practical importance.

  • Conflict of laws (or "private international law" in civil law countries) concerns which jurisdiction a legal dispute between private parties should be heard in and which jurisdiction's law should be applied. Today, businesses are increasingly capable of shifting capital and labour supply chains across borders, as well as trading with overseas businesses. Increasing numbers of businesses opt for commercial arbitration under the New York Convention 1958.[11]
  • European Union law is the first, and so far, only example of a supranational legal framework. Given the trend of increasing global economic integration, many regional agreements—especially the Union of South American Nations—are on track to follow the same model. In the EU, sovereign nations have gathered their authority in a system of courts and political institutions. These institutions are allowed the ability to enforce legal norms both against or for member states and citizens in a manner which is not possible through public international law.[12] As the European Court of Justice said in the 1960s, European Union law constitutes "a new legal order of international law" for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states.[13]

Constitutional and administrative law govern the affairs of the state. Constitutional law concerns both the relationships between the executive, legislature and judiciary and the human rights or civil liberties of individuals against the state. Most jurisdictions, like the United States and France, have a single codified constitution, with a Bill of Rights. A few, like the United Kingdom, have no such document. A "constitution" is simply those laws which constitute the body politic, from statute, case law and convention. A case named Entick v. Carrington[14] illustrates a constitutional principle deriving from the common law. Mr Entick's house was searched and ransacked by Sheriff Carrington. When Mr Entick complained in court, Sheriff Carrington argued that a warrant from a Government minister, the Earl of Halifax, was valid authority. However, there was no written statutory provision or court authority. The leading judge, Lord Camden, stated that,

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole ... If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment."

The fundamental constitutional principle, inspired by John Locke, holds that the individual can do anything but that which is forbidden by law, and the state may do nothing but that which is authorised by law.[15] Administrative law is the chief method for people to hold state bodies to account. People can apply for judicial review of actions or decisions by local councils, public services or government ministries, to ensure that they comply with the law. The first specialist administrative court was the Conseil d'État set up in 1799, as Napoleon assumed power in France

Criminal law

Criminal law (also known as penal law) pertains to crimes and punishment.[17] It thus regulates the definition of and penalties for offences found to have a sufficiently deleterious social impact.[18] Investigating, apprehending, charging, and trying suspected offenders is regulated by the law of criminal procedure.[19] The paradigm case of a crime lies in the proof, in the concept of beyond reasonable doubt, the judgement that a person is guilty of two things. First, the accused must commit an act which is deemed by society to be criminal, or actus reus (guilty act).[20] Second, the accused must have the requisite malicious intent to do a criminal act, or mens rea (guilty mind). However for so called "strict liability" crimes, an actus reus is enough.[21] Criminal systems of the civil law tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (dolus directus and dolus eventualis), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its punishment.[22]

Acts of crime include murder, assault, fraud and theft. In exceptional circumstances defences can apply to specific ats, such as murder in self defence, or pleading insanity. Another example is in the 19th century English case of R. v. Dudley and Stephens, which tested a defence of "necessity". The Mignotte, sailing from Southampton to Sydney, sank. Three crew members and a cabin boy were stranded on a raft. They were starving and the cabin boy was close to death. Driven to extreme hunger, the crew killed and ate the cabin boy. The crew survived and were rescued, but put on trial for murder. They argued it was necessary to kill the cabin boy to preserve their own lives. Lord Coleridge, expressing immense disapproval, ruled, "to preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it." The men were sentenced to hang, but public opinion was overwhelmingly supportive of the crew's right to preserve their own lives. In the end, the Crown commuted their sentences to six months in jail.[23]

Criminal law offences are viewed as offences against not just individual victims, but the community as well.[18] The state, usually with the help of police, takes the lead in prosecution, which is why in common law countries cases are cited as "The People v. …" or "R. (for Rex or Regina) v. …" Also, lay juries are often used to determine the guilt of defendants on points of fact: juries cannot change legal rules. Some developed countries still condone capital punishment for criminal activity, but the normal punishment for a crime will be imprisonment, fines, state supervision (such as probation), or community service. Modern criminal law has been affected considerably by the social sciences, especially with respect to sentencing, legal research, legislation, and rehabilitation.[24] On the international field, 108 are members of the International Criminal Court, which was established to try people for crimes against humanity.

Contract law

Contract Law regulates the exchange of promises between parties to perform or refrain from preforming an act enforceable in a court of law. Contracts can be formed from oral or written agreements. The concept of a "contract" is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).[26] In common law jurisdictions, three key elements to the creation of a contract are necessary; offer and acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company a medical firm advertised that its new wonder drug, the smokeball, would cure people's flu, and if it did not, the buyers would get £100. Many people sued for their £100 when the drug did not work. Fearing bankruptcy, Carbolic argued the advert was not to be taken as a serious, legally binding offer. It was an invitation to treat, mere puff, a gimmick. But the court of appeal held that to a reasonable man Carbolic had made a serious offer. People had given good consideration for it by going to the "distinct inconvenience" of using a faulty product. "Read the advertisement how you will, and twist it about as you will", said Lord Justice Lindley, "here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakable".[27]

"Consideration" indicates the fact that all parties to a contract have exchanged something of value. Some common law systems, including Australia, are moving away from the idea of consideration as a requirement. The idea of estoppel or culpa in contrahendo, can be used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations.[28] In civil law jurisdictions, consideration is not required for a contract to be binding.[29] In France, an ordinary contract is said to form simply on the basis of a "meeting of the minds" or a "concurrence of wills". Germany has a special approach to contracts, which ties into property law. Their 'abstraction principle' (Abstraktionsprinzip) means that the personal obligation of contract forms separately from the title of property being conferred. When contracts are invalidated for some reason (e.g. a car buyer is so drunk that he lacks legal capacity to contract)[30] the contractual obligation to pay can be invalidated separately from the proprietary title of the car. Unjust enrichment law, rather than contract law, is then used to restore title to the rightful owner.

Tort law

Torts, sometimes called delicts, are civil wrongs. To have acted tortiously, one must have breached a duty to another person, or infringed some pre-existing legal right. A simple example might be accidentally hitting someone with a cricket ball.[32] Under negligence law, the most common form of tort, the injured party could potentially claim compensation for his injuries from the party responsible. The principles of negligence are illustrated by Donoghue v. Stevenson.[33] A friend of Mrs Donoghue ordered an opaque bottle of ginger beer (intended for the consumption of Mrs Donoghue) in a café in Paisley. Having consumed half of it, Mrs Donoghue poured the remainder into a tumbler. The decomposing remains of a snail floated out. She claimed to have suffered from shock, fell ill with gastroenteritis and sued the manufacturer for carelessly allowing the drink to be contaminated. The House of Lords decided that the manufacturer was liable for Mrs Donoghue's illness. Lord Atkin took a distinctly moral approach, and said,

"The liability for negligence ... is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay ... The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."[34]

This became the basis for the four principles of negligence; (1) Mr Stevenson owed Mrs Donoghue a duty of care to provide safe drinks (2) he breached his duty of care (3) the harm would not have occurred but for his breach and (4) his act was the proximate cause, or not too remote a consequence, of her harm.[33] Another example of tort might be a neighbour making excessively loud noises with machinery on his property.[35] Under a nuisance claim the noise could be stopped. Torts can also involve intentional acts, such as assault, battery or trespass. A better known tort is defamation, which occurs, for example, when a newspaper makes unsupportable allegations that damage a politician's reputation.[36] More infamous are economic torts, which form the basis of labour law in some countries by making trade unions liable for strikes,[37] when statute does not provide immunity

Property law

Property law governs valuable things that people call 'theirs'. Real property, sometimes called 'real estate' refers to ownership of land and things attached to it.[40] Personal property, refers to everything else; movable objects, such as computers, cars, jewelry, and sandwiches, or intangible rights, such as stocks and shares. A right in rem is a right to a specific piece of property, contrasting to a right in personam which allows compensation for a loss, but not a particular thing back. Land law forms the basis for most kinds of property law, and is the most complex. It concerns mortgages, rental agreements, licences, covenants, easements and the statutory systems for land registration. Regulations on the use of personal property fall under intellectual property, company law, trusts and commercial law. An example of a basic case of most property law is Armory v. Delamirie.[41] A chimney sweep's boy found a jewel encrusted with precious stones. He took it to a goldsmith to have it valued. The goldsmith's apprentice looked at it, sneakily removed the stones, told the boy it was worth three halfpence and that he would buy it. The boy said he would prefer the jewel back, so the apprentice gave it to him, but without the stones. The boy sued the goldsmith for his apprentice's attempt to cheat him. Lord Chief Justice Pratt ruled that even though the boy could not be said to own the jewel, he should be considered the rightful keeper ("finders keeper") until the original owner is found. In fact the apprentice and the boy both had a right of possession in the jewel (a technical concept, meaning evidence that something could belong to someone), but the boy's possessory interest was considered better, because it could be shown to be first in time. Physical possession is nine tenths of the law, but not all.

This case is used to support the view of property in common law jurisdictions, that the person who can show the best claim to a piece of property, against any contesting party, is the owner.[42] By contrast, the classic civil law approach to property, propounded by Friedrich Carl von Savigny, is that it is a right good against the world. Obligations, like contracts and torts are conceptualised as rights good between individuals.[43] The idea of property raises many further philosophical and political issues. Locke argued that our "lives, liberties and estates" are our property because we own our bodies and mix our labour with our surroundings.

Equity and Trusts

Equity is a body of rules that developed in England separately from the "common law". The common law was administered by judges. The Lord Chancellor on the other hand, as the King's keeper of conscience, could overrule the judge made law if he thought it equitable to do so.[45] This meant equity came to operate more through principles than rigid rules. For instance, whereas neither the common law nor civil law systems allow people to split the ownership from the control of one piece of property, equity allows this through an arrangement known as a 'trust'. 'Trustees' control property, whereas the 'beneficial' (or 'equitable') ownership of trust property is held by people known as 'beneficiaries'. Trustees owe duties to their beneficiaries to take good care of the entrusted property.[46] In the early case of Keech v. Sandford[47] a child had inherited the lease on a market in Romford, London. Mr Sandford was entrusted to look after this property until the child matured. But before then, the lease expired. The landlord had (apparently) told Mr Sandford that he did not want the child to have the renewed lease. Yet the landlord was happy (apparently) to give Mr Sandford the opportunity of the lease instead. Mr Sandford took it. When the child (now Mr Keech) grew up, he sued Mr Sandford for the profit that he had been making by getting the market's lease. Mr Sandford was meant to be trusted, but he put himself in a position of conflict of interest. The Lord Chancellor, Lord King, agreed and ordered Mr Sandford should disgorge his profits. He wrote,

"I very well see, if a trustee, on the refusal to renew, might have a lease to himself few trust-estates would be renewed ... This may seem very hard, that the trustee is the only person of all mankind who might not have the lease; but it is very proper that the rule should be strictly pursued and not at all relaxed."[48]

Of course, Lord King LC was worried that trustees might exploit opportunities to use trust property for themselves instead of looking after it. Business speculators using trusts had just recently caused a stock market crash. Strict duties for trustees made their way into company law and were applied to directors and chief executive officers. Another example of a trustee's duty might be to invest property wisely or sell it.[49] This is especially the case for pension funds, the most important form of trust, where investors are trustees for people's savings until retirement. But trusts can also be set up for charitable purposes, famous examples being the British Museum or the Rockefeller Foundation.

Further disciplines

Law and commerce