ANALYSIS OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE PTUN IN ADJUDICATING THE OBJECT OF DISPUTE ISSUED BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE ETHICS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (CASE STUDY OF DKPP DECISIONS AND MKMK DECISIONS)

This study examines the authority of the Administrative Court (PTUN) in adjudicating disputes arising from decisions of ethical enforcement institutions, focusing on the cases of Evi Novilda Ginting and Anwar Usman. Using a juridical-normative legal research method, it adopts statutory, case, and historical approaches, relying on secondary data from literature sources. The findings reveal that PTUN's authority to adjudicate disputes involving decisions of institutions such as the Election Supervisory Board (DKPP) and the Constitutional Court Honorary Council (MKMK) is grounded in various laws and court decisions. In the Jakarta Administrative Court's rulings-namely Decision No. 82/G/2020/PTUN-JKT for Evi Novilda Ginting and Decision No. 604/G/2023/PTUN.JKT for Anwar Usman-both similarities and differences in the legal foundations were identified. The primary similarity lies in the application of Article 1(9) and Article 47 of Law No. 5 of 1986 on Administrative Courts, which grants PTUN the authority to resolve administrative disputes involving decisions of state institutions, including ethical enforcement bodies. Differences arise in the use of Article 87 of Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration to test the validity of decisions issued by DKPP, and the reliance on Constitutional Court Decision No. 31/PUU-XI/2013 and Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 4 of 2016 for legal guidelines. However, PTUN decisions revising or annulling ethical enforcement rulings pose risks if they interfere with substantive ethical judgments, potentially undermining the legitimacy and independence of these institutions. Such interventions threaten the authority of DKPP and MKMK, weaken the public perception of their credibility, and hinder the enforcement of public ethics in Indonesia.