A New Interpretation of the Opposing Theory in State Administrative Court Decisions

Abstract

The oplossing theory has colored the decisions of the State Administrative Court for more than 12 (twelve) years since it was formulated in the plenary meeting of the state administrative chamber in 2012. The interpretation of the oplossing theory by the state administrative chamber was initially intended to create legal unity because the Supreme Court had implemented a system room whose one goal is legal unity. During this time, the oplossing theory has been applied by judges in the state administrative court in cases of Government Goods/Services Procurement, Work Contracts and Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance and Coal Mining Concession Work Agreement (PKP2B). This research uses a normative legal approach with a statutory approach, a comparative approach, a conceptual approach and a case approach. From the research results, it was found that there was inconsistency among state administrative court judges in the sense that in similar cases, some of them applied the oplossing theory but others did not, giving rise to legal uncertainty. The application of the oplossing theory also does not resolve the essence of the dispute because it has not yet entered into the subject of the dispute. For this reason, it is recommended that the oplossing theory no longer be used and be given a new interpretation both in the State Administrative Court Law and in the plenary meeting of the State Administrative Chamber in accordance with legal developments, namely if there is a point of intersection of authority between civil and state administrative cases, then the case civil law must merge into state administrative matters or in other words private law must merge into public law.