Quasi Judicial Ombudsman: Measuring Legal Certainty After Constitutional Court Decision No. 62/PUU-VIII/2010
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70062/greensocial.v2i2.223Keywords:
Ombudsman, pseudo/quasi, advocacy, legal reconstruction, public serviceAbstract
This study discusses the legal reconstruction of the authority of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia (ORI) after the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number 62/PUU-VIII/2010, with a focus on advocacy based on pseudo/quasi principles. The Ombudsman, as an independent state institution, plays a role in supervising the implementation of public services to prevent and deal with maladministration. However, the existence of Article 43 of Law Number 37 of 2008 concerning the Ombudsman and the Constitutional Court's decision creates the potential for norm inharmonization that has an impact on the implementation of the Ombudsman's duties. This study analyzes two main things: legal certainty on the authority of the Ombudsman after the Constitutional Court's decision and legal reconstruction to strengthen the supervisory function of public services. The results show that the pseudo/quasi principle allows the Ombudsman to carry out an advocacy function similar to the judiciary, but without full executive power such as the judiciary. Legal certainty is needed to ensure that the Ombudsman's actions remain within the limits of the authority regulated by law. Legal reconstruction is suggested to provide stronger legitimacy to the Ombudsman's authority, including strengthening the recommendation aspect to be more binding and implementive. This reconstruction also includes increasing institutional capacity, coordination between agencies, and strengthening regulations that support supervisory functions that are more responsive to the needs of the community. Thus, this research contributes to the development of public service law, especially related to the role of the Ombudsman in realizing transparent, accountable, and fair services.
References
[1.] Aprita, S. and Adhitya, R., Filsafat Hukum, Depok: PT Raja Grafindo Persada, 2020.
[2.] Efendi, S. H. A., Susanti, D. O., and SH, M., Ilmu Hukum, books.google.com, 2021.
[3.] Faatihah, N. M. and Utomo, A. S., “Ombudsman Republik Indonesia sebagai Pengawas Penyelenggaraan Pelayanan Publik dalam Mewujudkan Good Governance pada Tahun 2020,” Sosio Dialektika, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 232, 2022, doi: 10.31942/sd.v7i2.7613.
[4.] Furqon, E., “Kedudukan Lembaga Negara Independen Berfungsi Quasi Peradilan dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan Indonesia,” vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 77–85, 2020, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.51825/nhk.v3i1.8523.
[5.] Gustiniati, D. J. and Sopacua, M. G., Metode Penelitian Hukum, Bandung: Penerbit Widinia Bhakti Persada, 2023.
[6.] Heahunussa, D. J., Sopacua, M. G., and Dkk, Metode Penelitian Hukum, Bandung: Penerbit Widinia Bhakti Persada, 2023.
[7.] HR, R., Hukum Administrasi Negara, Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada, 2013.
[8.] Konstitusi, M., Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 62/PUU-VIII/2010, Indonesia, 2010.
[9.] Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, “UUD Negara RI Tahun 1945,” pp. 1–28, 2000.
[10.] Manullang, E. F. M., “Misinterpretasi Ide Gustav Radbruch mengenai Doktrin Filosofis tentang Validitas dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang,” Undang Jurnal Hukum, 2022.
[11.] Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, “Peraturan Ombudsman Nomor 41 tahun 2019 tentang Tata Cara Pencegahan Maladministrasi Penyelenggaraan Pelayanan Publik,” Bioinformatics, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 874–882, 2019.
[12.] Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2009 tentang Pelayanan Publik, Indonesia, 2009.
[13.] Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, Indonesia, 1997, doi: 10.56874/islamiccircle.v2i1.472.
[14.] Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2008 tentang Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, Indonesia, 2008.
[15.] Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Indonesia, 2009.
[16.] Pratiwie, D. W., “Urgensi Keberadaan Ombudsman Republik Indonesia dalam Rangka Mewujudkan Good Governance (Ditinjau dari Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2008 tentang Ombudsman Republik Indonesia),” Yuriska: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 63–79, 2017, doi: 10.24903/yrs.v4i1.164.
[17.] Pratiwie, D. W., “Urgensi Keberadaan Ombudsman Republik Indonesia Dalam Rangka Mewujudkan Good Governance,” Yuriska: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 63–79, 2017.
[18.] Setiawan Aji, D. and Cahyaningtyas, I., “The Legal Strength of the Ombudsman Recommendation of the Republic of Indonesia in the Effort of Realizing Good Governance,” International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1060–1067, 2021, doi: 10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i5-22.
[19.] Sinaga, B. P., “Filsafat Hukum Mengajarkan Kepastian Hukum,” osf.io.
[20.] Soekanto, S., “Penelitian Hukum Normatif,” vol. 1, no. 1, p. 4, 2019.
[21.] Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 2015 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah, no. 42, 2019.
[22.] Wiguna, M. O. C., “Peluang Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdata tentang Tanah melalui Alternative Dispute Resolution,” Masalah Hukum, vol. 47, no. 1, p. 47, 2018, doi: 10.14710/mmh.47.1.2018.47-55.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Green Social: International Journal of Law and Civil Affairs
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
