The Reconstruction of Public Information Dispute Resolution as the Effort in Realizing Substantive Justice in Indonesia

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 110-116

J. Environ. Treat. Tech.

ISSN: 2309-1185

Journal web link: http://www.jett.dormaj.com

https://doi.org/10.47277/JETT/9(1)116

The Reconstruction of Public Information Dispute

Resolution as the Effort in Realizing Substantive

Justice in Indonesia

Kadek Cahya Susila Wibawa*, Aju Putrijanti

Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia

Received: 25/08/2020

Accepted: 18/10/2020

Published: 20/03/2021

Abstract

The right to information is a human right as derogable right. Fulfilment of the right to information often leads to information disputes

with Information and Documentation Management Officer (IDMO) as administrative officials who are given the task of managing

information and documentation. Information dispute resolution becomes important to be resolved immediately because it is related to

fulfilling a sense of justice and fulfilling the right to information for the community. The Establishment of the Government Administration

Act (GA Act) causes the dualism of information dispute resolution. Article 53 of the GA Act will be the basis for resolving information

disputes in the administrative court domain, while the Public Information Officer/PIO Act is the basis for resolving information disputes

within the Information Commission domain. This dualism needs to be resolved to ensure legal certainty for the government and society as

Justicia Belen. The development of dispute resolution reconstruction of information is conducted by strengthening information dispute

resolution in non-litigation. Ideal information dispute resolution should be resolved first through administrative remedies (objections and

administrative appeals) and through the Information Commission. The court becomes the ultimum remedium in resolving a dispute.

Therefore, strengthening the Information Commission in terms of development, finance and authority is one way to strengthen the resolution

of information disputes outside the court.

Keywords: Information Commission; Public Information Dispute; Information Openness

with the ease of accessing and obtaining information or correlated

with public information disclosure.

Introduction

Basically, a state in its realization as the government has the

Rights to information openness is a part of human rights that

is derogable right. Golwal & Kalbande stated that, “right to know

is also closely linked with other basic rights such as freedom of

speech and expression and right to education. It is an attribute of

liberty” [2]. Recognition of the right to information disclosure as

part of human rights is expressly regulated in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was declared by

duty to realize the goals of the country by providing public

services. The government (state) is obliged to build public trust in

public services and the state needs to strive for an effort to

improve the quality and guarantee the provision of public services

in accordance with general principles of good governance and

corporation [1]. Indonesia has stipulated Law No. 25 of 2009

concerning Public Services (PS Act) as a legal basis for the

government to realize optimal and excellent public services. One

of the supporting indicators of the successful implementation of

public services by the government is by applying the principle of

maximum information disclosure. Article 4 of Law No. 25 of

the United Nations on December 10 , 1948. In line with this law,

Indonesia has enacted Law No. 14 of 2008 concerning Public

Information Openness (PIO Act) on April 30 , 2008. PIO Act

(

Public Information Openness Act) in principle is expected to

guarantee the right of the public to obtain public information;

regulate state obligations; and guaranteeing private and public

participation in the delivery of public services. Adji Achmad

Rinaldo Fernandes & Jhon Fresly stated that [3]:

009 concerning Public Services, states that the implementation

of public service is based on; legal certainty; equal rights; the

balance of rights and responsibilities; professionalism;

participatory; equality of treatment (non-discriminatory);

openness; accountability; special facilities and treatment for

vulnerable groups; punctuality; speed, convenience, and

affordability. Furthermore, in the Elucidation of Article 4 letter h

of Public Services/PS Act, it states that each service recipient can

easily access and obtain information about the desired service.

Based on the law above, public services are closely correlated

The successful performance of good public services is largely

determined by the involvement and synergy of the three main

actors-government, society, and the private sector. In the

administration of thegovernment, government apparatus is one

of the important actors in control of the process of good

Corresponding author: Kadek Cahya Susila Wibawa, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia. E-mail: kcswibawa.undip@gmail.com

110

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 110-116

governance. The involvement of the government apparatus in

supporting the success of governance is largely determined by

understanding the concept of good governance and excellent

experience with bureaucracy and government bureaucracy.

information in an effort to realize substantive justice in Indonesia.

Research Method

This research combines non-doctrinal legal research and

doctrinal legal research. Non-doctrinal legal research relies on the

constructivism paradigm. Related to doctrinal legal research, this

research uses a philosophical approach, conceptual approach, and

regulatory approach by using the secondary data. In the statutory

approach, an analysis is carried out on the 1945 Constitution of

the Republic of Indonesia, PIO Act, GA Act, Law No. 14 of 1985

concerning the Supreme Court (with amendments), Law No. 48

of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, Law No. 5 of 1986

concerning State Administrative Court (SAC Act), Supreme

Court Regulation No. 2 of 2011, and Information Commission

Regulation Number 1 of 2013.

Analysis of the results of studies to answer the issues was

conducted using a qualitative constructive approach. Qualitative

research is research that is used to investigate, describe, explain,

discover the quality or features of social influence that cannot be

explained, measured, or illustrated through a quantitative

approach [6]. Constructive in this research means that the analysis

is not just a description but also at an interpretive stage and

According to Public Information Openness Act, people have

the right to obtain public information from the government. The

governance of public information does not only allow people to

access government information but also enables them to actively

participate in the policy-making process [4]. Public information

can be requested by the public in this case as an applicant for

public information to the Information and Documentation

Managing Officers (IDMO) as long as it meets the formulation of

Article 2 of the Public Information Openness Act that the

requested information is not confidential information and it is

excluded as public information in the Public Information

Openness Act or constitutes information that is if opened can

actually damage the greater interests [5]. Public requests that are

not responded to by the Information and Documentation

Managing Officers (IDMO) can be submitted to the supervisor of

the Information and Documentation Managing Officers. Filing an

objection is the beginning of a dispute (conflict) between the

applicant for public information and public bodies.

ultimately undertakes

a reconstruction related to dispute

Article 37 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Public Information

Openness Act in conjunction with Article 35 paragraph (1) of the

Public Information Commission Regulation Number 1 of 2010

concerning Public Information Service Standards regulates that:

public information applicants file objections or parties who

receive dissatisfied power of attorney with the decision of the

IDMO superior have the right to submit a Public Information

dispute resolution to the Public Information Commission no later

than 14 (fourteen) working days from the receipt of the IDMO

superior's decision.

resolution of public information in Indonesia.

The Urgency of Public Information Dispute

Resolution

Public information openness is very important and it relates

to realizing the open state implementation. The right to public

information is very important because the community needs to be

involved in governance, development, and public services to

realize good governance. Public participation or involvement

does not mean much without guaranteeing the disclosure of public

information [7].

In this stage, the problem will arise if the regulation is related

to Law No. 30 of 2014 Regarding Government Administration

Community involvement in governance, development, and

public services often results in conflict or dispute. Conflicts and

disputes always occur in the association of human life. Nia

Kurniati stated that “the term conflict and dispute contained an

understanding of differences in interests between the two or more

parties, but between the conflict and the dispute both could be

distinguished” [8]. Conflict may be defined as a struggle or

contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs,

values, or goals. Conflict on teams is inevitable; however, the

results of the conflict are not predetermined [9]. A conflict

changes or develops into a dispute when the aggrieved party has

expressed dissatisfaction or concern, either directly to the party

that is considered to be the cause of the loss or to another party

(

GA Act). In the event that the IDMO supervisor does not provide

an answer to the objection raised by the public information

applicant, it will be possible to have two scenarios, as follow: (1)

The information applicant can submit a public information

dispute resolution to the public information commission for not

responding to the objection filed by the IDMO supervisor; (2)

Based on Article 53 of the GA Act that: adheres to the principle

of positive fiction, the petition (community) which is not followed

up by government bodies and/or officials with decisions and/or

actions, is considered legally granted (positive fictitious). With

this second scenario, the state administrative court has the

authority to resolve the dispute. This condition has resulted in a

legal dualism in the settlement of public information disputes and

empirically the dualism will cause public confusion in seeking

justice in the field of public information disputes in Indonesia.

One other problem that is also faced in the settlement of

public information disputes is related to the post-decision of the

public information dispute, such as the execution of the decision.

Decisions on public information disputes, both through the court

and the Information Commission, proved to be very difficult to

ask the public body as the respondent to comply with the decision.

Even the PIO Act does not contain norms regarding the execution

of public information disputes. Based on the case, this paper aims

to describe the urgency of resolving public information disputes;

layout the current public information dispute resolution

construction; and reconstruct the ideal dispute resolution of public

[8].

Article 1 Number 5 of the Public Information Openness Act

states: public information disputes occur between public and

users of public information relating to the right to obtain and use

information based on legislation. Basically, disputes or conflicts

between information managers and requesters of information are

very likely to occur due to several reasons, namely: (1) Disputes

regarding information that may be accessed with which may not

be accessed; (2) Disputes regarding the refusal of public bodies to

provide the information requested by the requesting party for

public information; (3) Disputes regarding the delay of public

bodies to provide the information requested by public information

applicants; and (4) Disputes regarding the number of costs

111

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 110-116

imposed by public bodies for costs to be paid by an applicant for

public information [10].

Based on 2010-2019 data, it is recorded that the Information

Commission has received 2928 requests for resolution of public

information disputes and state administrative courts based on

Administration Act, the settlement of public information disputes

in Indonesia basically can be solved in two ways, namely:

Information Commission and State Administrative Court

(SAC/PTUN). Both of these pathways can be taken if there has

been an attempt to file an objection in advance from the public

information that applies to the IDMO supervisor. In the event that

the IDMO supervisor responds to the objection, if it is still not

satisfied, the information applicant can submit a dispute

resolution to the information commission. However, if the IDMO

supervisor does not respond to the objection, then based on

Article 53 of the GA Act, then the next settlement if the applicant

is not satisfied can file a lawsuit to the state administrative court.

First, the Settlement of Public Information Disputes through

Information Commission Article 38 Section (1) Public

Information Openness Act states that The Information

Commission solves public information disputes through

mediation and/or non-litigation adjudication no more than 14

015-2019 data received 51 requests for resolution of public

information disputes; with details of data per year below:

Table 1. Number of Settlement of Public Information Disputes Request

Number of Public Information Dispute

Year

Information

Supreme Court

Commission

(State Administrative Court)

010

011

012

013

014

015

016

017

018

019

419

324

377

1354

120

(

fourteen) working days after receiving requests for resolution of

public information disputes. Articles 39 and 40 of the Public

Information Openness Act states that decisions of the Information

Commission originating from an agreement through mediation

are final and binding, and dispute resolution through mediation is

the choice of the parties and is voluntary.

Total

2928

Source: Processed from Annotation of the Public Information Openness

Act and the Supreme Court Report.

Article 42 of the Public Information Openness Act stipulates

that the resolution of public information disputes through non-

litigation adjudication by the Information Commission can only

be taken if the mediation attempt is declared unsuccessful in

writing by one of the parties to the dispute, or one of the parties

to the dispute withdraw from the negotiations. With regard to the

decision of the Information Commission on non-litigation

adjudication, legal remedies can be made in the form of filing a

lawsuit through the state administrative court if the sued person is

a state public body or the filing of the claim is made through a

district (general) court if the sued is a public body other than the

state public or private-public (vide Article 47 of the Public

Information Openness Act).

Another legal effort after through state administrative court or

district (general) court is filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Based on this case, the process of seeking justice in public

information disputes through the door of The Information

Commission does not recognize appeals in the state

administrative high court or the high court. The cassation process

according to the Public Information Openness Act is carried out

without an appeal. Based on Article 23 of Law No. 48 of 2009

concerning Judicial Power and Article 43 of Law No. 14 of 1985

concerning the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Act), it is possible

to submit an appeal without prior appeal as long as this matter is

regulated or determined by law. Related to the reasons for

cassation, the Public Information Openness Act only mentions the

reason a person filed an appeal because they did not receive a state

administrative court decision or a district (general) court [7].

Second, the Settlement of Public Information Disputes

through State Administrative Court. Law No. 5 of 1986 of State

Administrative Court as a legal basis for the court to operate under

the Supreme Court, with specific competence states: the absolute

competence of the court is to investigate, decide and settle the

administrative dispute, include the staffing dispute [1]. The state

administrative court has the authority to decide administrative

disputes related to the provisions (beschikking) issued by the state

administration official, in the case of a case being submitted to a

state administrative court which is the object of any claim by the

In 2018, there were 682 requests of public information dispute

that had not been solved Information Commission. The number

of unsolved cases increased in 2019 of 63 cases. It brought the

total number of unsolved cases to 2019 of 745 cases. Based on

these data, there are still quite many cases of public information

disputes that have not been resolved, either by the Information

Commission or by the Supreme Court. Settlement of public

information disputes is absolutely necessary because: (1)

Settlement of public information disputes is to realize the value

of justice for the parties to the dispute, in this case, the public as

applicants for public information with the government (public

agencies/officials); (2) Settlement of public information disputes

as a mechanism guaranteeing the fulfillment of the rights of the

public to the public information. This is important because the

right to public information is one of the human rights

constitutionally granted by the State through the 1945

Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; (3) The government

requires legal certainty related to the substance in dispute,

whether included as information that is opened or does not need

to be opened to the public. This certainty is needed to continue

the administration of government, development, and public

services; and (4) Preventing misuse of authority of public bodies

and negligence of obligations of the public. Eko Noer Kristiyanto

stated: settlement of public information disputes means the

fulfillment of the right of everyone to obtain information, thus, it

is relevant to improve the quality of services and also involve the

community in the process of making public decisions [7]. Based

on this case, dispute resolution is to realize justice for the Justicia

Belen (public information applicants) and for information

management; and the realization of good governance. Therefore,

the resolution of public information disputes is a matter that can’t

be postponed to be resolved.

The Construction (Dualism) in Settlement of

Public Information Disputes in Indonesia

Based on Public Information Openness Act and Government

112

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 110-116

plaintiff is related to the issuing beschiking by state administration

officials who are considered detrimental to one party or even

many parties. With the existence of the Public Information

Openness Act and Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2011, the

authority of the state administrative court has also increased,

especially in adjudicating public information disputes [10].

The state administrative court becomes the first path for

settlement of public information disputes if the public information

applicant submits a lawsuit based on Article 53 of the

Government Administrative Act (without going through the

Information Commission) and may become a further legal

remedy if previously the information dispute has been tried

through the Information Commission.

Information Openness Act may not take into account that factual

There is different terminology between Article 47 of Public

Information Openness Act and Supreme Court Regulation No. 2

of 2011, in terms of objection and lawsuit at the time of the

actions of state public bodies can be subjected to claims in state

administrative courts (vide Article 1 number 18 of the

Government Administrative Act).

settlement of

a public information dispute to the state

administrative court (general) court. The Public Information

Openness Act uses the term lawsuit in resolving information

disputes to the court, whereas Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of

3 Result

Naomi Creutzfeldt & Ben Bradford argued, “Justice Systems

vary considerably and each jurisdiction has its own approach to

defining how people can legally resolve disputes. This provides

both challenges and opportunities for access to justice.”

Furthermore, Naomi Creutzfeldt & Ben Bradford also added “The

concept of access to justice has a number of nuances; however,

on a principal level the aim is to ensure effective independent

dispute resolution mechanism.” [11].

011 uses the term objection. This will overlap with the term

objection submitted by the public information that applies to the

IDMO supervisor.

Public Information Openness Act and Supreme Court

Regulation No. 2 of 2011 are not familiar with the term appeal to

the state administrative court or district (general) court decisions.

The next legal remedy is to submit a cassation to the Supreme

Court. The problem is the information applicant who filed a

lawsuit to the state administrative court without going through the

Information Commission channel, whether it is also subject to the

provisions of the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2011 and

the Public Information Openness Act or it is subject to the State

Administrative Court Act. This becomes unclear or out of sync

because the State Administrative Court Act states that legal

remedies after submitting a lawsuit to the state administrative

court are appeals to the state administrative high court. Thus, legal

efforts from the beginning through the state administrative court,

only cassation to the Supreme Court.

Another problem is about public information disputes with

non-state public agency petitioners, the first settlement after filing

an objection to the IDMO superiors can only be reached through

the Information Commission (not through a state administrative

court or district/general court). That is because the respondent is

not included in the scope of the state administration officials.

Thus, the basis of Article 53 of the Government Administration

Act can’t be applied in this case. In brief, the flow or construction

of public information dispute resolution in Indonesia can be

described in Figure 1.

In connection with the settlement of public information

disputes in Indonesia, it is necessary to inventory several things

that become weaknesses in the resolution of information disputes

in Indonesia, such as (1) Dualism of information dispute

resolution paths, namely: through the Information Commission

(vide Public Information Openness Act) and through the State

Administrative Court (vide Government Administrative Act); (2)

Weak position and nature of the relationship of the Information

Commission. This can be seen from the position of the Regional

Information Commission that is still under the service or regional

government agencies, even though Article 23 of the Public

Information Openness Act states: The Information Commission

is an independent agency that functions to carry out this law and

its implementing regulations establish technical guidelines for

Public Information service standards and resolve public

information disputes through mediation and/or non-litigation

adjudication.

Another weakness is the Information Commission the nature

of the working relationship between the Central Information

Commission and the Information Commission in the provinces

and districts/cities is not hierarchical in nature [12]. The next

reality is related to the inability to execute decisions made by the

Information Commission during mediation and non-litigation

adjudication; (3) On the litigation track, no appeal is available

Figure 1. The Scheme of Information Dispute Settlement in Indonesia

Source: Data Processed based on Public Information Openness

Law and Government Administrative Law

(

advanced court) if the disputing party is not satisfied with the

decision of the first court (general court or administrative court).

Legal remedies against the verdict of the first instance court are

only appealed to the Supreme Court.

The development model of the settlement of public

information disputes needs to be conducted immediately. It is

substantially to provide legal certainty and fulfillment of the value

of justice for the parties to the dispute. The current model of

information dispute resolution is considered not able to fulfill or

realize substantive justice for justice seekers in the field of public

The dualism of settlement of public information disputes is

caused as a result that there is no explicit regulation in Public

Information Openness Act that objections and dispute resolution

in Public Information Openness are prerequisites for filing legal

remedies through state administrative courts (in adjudicating

public information disputes involving state public bodies). This

inconsistency is a natural thing considering that the GA Act was

passed after the PIO Act. Thus, the legislators of the Public

113

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 110-116

information.

administrative court.

First, strengthening administrative legal efforts (Objections

and Administrative Appeals) as the First Line of Information

Dispute Resolution. The administrative legal effort is legal

protection efforts given to individuals or legal entities in dispute

with state administrative bodies or officials, where the

implementation still involves the government. In the state

administrative justice system, there are two ways to resolve

disputes in the state administrative court. For state administrative

decisions that provide administrative-legal remedies, the

resolution of the dispute must be done through administrative

legal measures (objections and administrative appeals). If the

state administrative decision does not recognize administrative-

legal remedies, a claim can be filed directly to the state

administrative court.

In the context of public information disputes, ideally, the

parties to the dispute must first seek a solution through

administrative-legal measures (objections and administrative

appeals). Hermanto & Sudiarawan stated that the objection can be

submitted to the agency that issued the decision or agency that is

vertically higher [13]. Objection may be found in all fields and in

every agency authorized to make decisions.

Article 48 paragraph (2) of the State Administrative Court Act

stipulates Procedure for objection is that the settlement of the

State Administrative Decree must be carried out by the State

Administration Agency or Officer who issued the Decree. Siti

Soetami quoted by Bagus Hermanto & Kadek Agus Sudiarawan

explained, “Administrative appeals are if the resolution is carried

out by a supervisory agency or other agency from the issuing the

relevant decision” [13]. Administrative appeals can be made to a

higher administrative body or a committee that was formed

specifically for the purpose of resolving a dispute. The decision

of the higher body or special committee can then be submitted to

the next stage of the request for dispute resolution.

Optimization of administrative-legal efforts needs to be done

to reduce the pile of cases in court. This is because there are many

burdens of the court, especially the Supreme Court. Therefore,

efforts to resolve dispute resolution or dispute resolution outside

the court need to be minimized. Regarding public information

disputes, efforts to resolve through objections to the relevant

IDMO and administrative appeals to IDMO superiors need to be

optimized. Filing objections and administrative appeals must be

made before submitting a request for dispute resolution to the

Information Commission. The Public Information Openness Act

does not recognize administrative appeals. The Public

Information Openness Act only recognizes objections raised by

information applicants to IDMO superiors. There is an

asynchronous term “objection” in this context. “Objection”

should be submitted to the respondent (IDMO), whereas

The Public Information Openness Act indeed emphasizes

optimizing the role of the Information Commission as an

institution outside the court to resolve public information

disputes. The Information Commission continues to carry out the

function of resolving public information disputes through

mediation and non-litigation adjudication. The parties who will

continue their dispute to the court (state administrative court or

general court) are required to settle disputes in the Information

Commission (Central Information Commission, Provincial

Information Commission, or Regency/City Information

Commission). The mediation process is voluntary dispute

settlement. It is used the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2008

that absolutely must be taken. Therefore, all cases must first be

settled through mediation, as outlined in Article 2 paragraph (2)

of the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2008 [14]. Mediation

according to Mamudji, has the following characteristics:

“advanced negotiations; assisted by neutral and impartial third

parties; the third party does not have the authority to decide; the

existence of third parties is accepted by the parties, and aims to

resolve disputes based on satisfactory agreements” [15]. Article 1

number 6 of the Information Openness Act states: mediation is

the settlement of public information disputes between the parties

through the assistance of an information commission mediator.

The public information dispute settlement process at the

Information Commission after mediation is a non-litigation

adjudication. Article 1 number 7 of the Information Openness Act

explains, “Adjudication is the process of resolving disputes over

public information between parties decided by the Information

Commission”. The implementation of non-litigation adjudication

resembles litigation, where the Information Commission seems to

be like a judge who decides a dispute. This non-litigation

adjudication decision has the same executorial power as the

court's decision because, in its decision, it contains the words

“For the Sake of Justice Based on The one and only God.” It

means that the decision of the Information Commission can

already be executed without the need for a court decision.

Based on the case, non-litigation adjudication is a continuation

of the mediation process. Both of these processes according to the

opinion of the author must be taken before going through the

judicial route. Out-of-court dispute resolution is needed to reduce

the pile of unresolved cases in the Supreme Court.

Discussion

Public Information Openness Act needs to be synchronized

with various relevant laws and regulations, such as; Government

Administrative Act, Judicial Power Act, State Administrative

Court Act, and the Supreme Court Act. Newly constructed

construction requires the resolution of public information disputes

through the Information Commission before being submitted to a

district (general) court or state administrative court. The

settlement of disputes through the court is an act of ultimum

remedium (the last resort) [16].

“

objection to the PPID supervisor” should use the term

administrative appeal”. Synchronization of terminology needs to

be conducted, so that ambiguity does not occur in its

implementation.

Second, the synchronization of Public Information Openness

Act and Related Laws and Regulations. The dualism of pubic

information settlement must be solved as fast as possible. Based

on table 1 data regarding the number of public information

disputes, it can be concluded that the disputing parties tend to use

the Information Commission channel. The public begins to utilize

the Information Commission in resolving public information

disputes, before proceeding to the realm of the state

The disputing party who has taken the path of mediation and

non-litigation adjudication, if they are not satisfied, they can file

a lawsuit or take the litigation to the district (general) court or

state administrative court. In line with Article 47 paragraph (1)

and (2) of the Public Information Openness Act, the filing of the

lawsuit is carried out through a state administrative court if the

sued person is the state public equivalent; and the filing of a

lawsuit is carried out through a district (general) court if the sued

114

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 110-116

person is a public body other than the state public body. With

respect to the court's decision, the legal remedy that can be taken

is to appeal to the Supreme Court. The exclusion of appeals from

the litigation path is to fulfill a simple, fast and low-cost court

process, as mandated by Article 2 paragraph (4) of the Judicial

Power Act. In addition, because the parties to the dispute have

taken the path of quasi litigation or non-litigation adjudication (a

process resembling a court), there is no need to carry out further

litigation processes after going through a district court or state

administrative court process. The party who does not accept the

decision of the state administrative court or the district (general)

court can submit an appeal to the Supreme Court, whereas for

judicial review as extraordinary legal efforts still follow the

provisions in the Supreme Court Act.

In order to realize principles of justice that are simple, fast,

and low-cost; it is necessary to regulate the grace period in the

process of settling public information disputes through the

Information Commission channel and the court line. Timing in

arranging a dispute resolution is an effort to provide legal

certainty for the parties to the dispute. The ideal time for dispute

resolution in the mediation phase is a maximum of 10 working

days; while the non-litigation adjudication stage is a maximum of

that is, to separate the Central Information Commission

secretariat from the Ministry of Communication and Information.

With the separation of the Central Information Commission

secretariat from the Ministry of Communication and Information,

it should have an impact on the existence of a separate budget

heading of the Central Information Commission in the national

budget [17]. This condition also occurs in the Regional

Information Commission, whose secretariat is under the

provincial, district, or city government.

Article 28 of the Public Information Openness Act regulates

the responsibility of the Information Commission that is

responsible to the executive (the Central Information Commission

is responsible to the President, the Regional Information

Commission is responsible to the Governor/Regent/Mayor). The

provisions of Article 28 of the Public Information Openness Act

contradict the context of Article 23 of the Public Information

Openness Act that states that the Information Commission is an

independent institution. The ideal construction is that the

Information Commission submits a report to the executive, not to

the executive. The ideal responsibility should be that the Regional

Information Commission is responsible to the Central

Information Commission, and the Central Information

Commission is responsible in accordance with statutory

regulations.

Article 24 paragraph (1) of the PIO Act defines the

Information Commission as The Information Commission

consists of the Central Information Commission, the Provincial

Information Commission, and if a District/City Information

Commission is needed. Furthermore, Prayitno et al., stated that

normatively and empirically, there is no institution called the

Information Commission, but there are the Central Information

Commission, Provincial Information Commission, and

Regency/City Information Commission [17]. To create an

“Information Commission” agency, it must be conducted through

the unification of the Central Information Commission, the

Provincial Information Commission, and the Regency/City

Information Commission in an institutional unit that is

independent and hierarchical in terms of organizational,

administrative and budget management aspects.

Construction of unification that assists the institutional

Information Commission in stages ideally does not touch on

aspects of resolving public information disputes. The dispute

settlement model that has been designed at this time is still ideal

to be maintained. This means that the resolution of information

disputes at the Information Commission institution is not

hierarchical or tiered. The verdicts that are produced are final and

binding at each level, in the event that the disputing party does

not file a lawsuit (not an objection as to the current PIO Act) to

the court. Non-tiered information dispute resolution has goals that

are as hard as dispute resolution that is carried out quickly,

simply, and at a low cost.

0 working days. The ideal time for dispute resolution through

litigation (state administrative court or district/general court) is a

maximum of 30 working days, while for the cassation stage a

maximum of 60 working days.

Third, strengthening Information Commission. In the context

of public information openness, The Information Commission has

a very important role in the resolution of public information

disputes. The ideal construction in resolving disputes over public

information is to strengthen the institutional Information

Commission as the foremost fortress in resolving public

information dispute, outside of administrative-legal efforts

(

objections and administrative appeals). Speaking of

strengthening the Information Commission, the problem of the

independence of the Information Commission must be resolved

immediately. This is in view of the quite strategic task, function,

and authority of the Information Commission in implementing the

Public Information Openness Act to ensure the fulfillment of the

people's right to information as mandated by Article 23 juncto

Article 26 of the PIO Act [17].

Institutional information rearrangement is absolutely

necessary. A number of things need to be reorganized to

strengthen the Information Commission's institution to become an

independent and professional Information Commission, such as

(

1) Realizing the independence of the Central Information

Commission and the Regional Information Commission. (2)

Reformulation regarding the responsibility of the Information

Commission. (3) Hierarchical or tiered institutional restructuring.

(

4) Additional duties, functions, and authority of the Information

Commission.

Furthermore, the independence of the Central Information

One context of the implementation of the Public Information

Openness Act that needs serious attention and often arises in

resolving information disputes is the difficulty of executing the

Information Commission's decision. This is because the

Information Commission does not have the authority to execute

decisions [17]. There is currently only the Information

Commission mediation decision can be executed through the

court, whereas the non-litigation adjudication decision of the

Information Commission can’t be requested for execution in

court. Therefore, it is necessary to make a new construction

Commission can be started by reformulating the provisions of

Article 29 paragraph (2) and (3) of the Public Information

Openness Act which essentially states that the Information

Commission secretariat is carried out by the government or led by

a secretary established by the Minister. Regulation of the Minister

of No.

Communication

and

Information

1/PER/M.KOMINFO/03/2011 states that the secretariat of the

Information Commission is attached to and under the Ministry of

Communication and Information. This problem must be resolved,

115

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 110-116

related to the addition of duties, functions, and authority of the

Information Commission, namely the granting of authority to

execute the Information Commission's decision so that the

Information Commission's decision is not blunt. Based on the

description above, the new construction of ideal public

information dispute resolution to realize substantive justice, as

illustrated in Figure 2.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that

would prejudice the impartiality of this scientific work.

Authors’ contribution

All authors of this study have a complete contribution for data

collection, data analyses and manuscript writing.

References

Wibawa, K. C. S. (2019). Urgensi Keterbukaan Informasi dalam

Pelayanan Publik sebagai Upaya Mewujudkan Tata Kelola

Pemerintahan yang Baik. Administrative Law & Governance Journal,

(2), 218-234.

Golwal, M. D., & Kalbande, D. T. (2012). Right to Information

Information Literacy and Public Libraries. Asia Pacific Journal of

Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 1(1), 89.

Fernandes, A. A. R., & Fresly, J. (2017). Modeling of role of public

leader, open government information and public service performance

in Indonesia. Journal of Management Development.

Sjoraida, D. F., Husin, L. H., & Mariana, D. (2018). Further analysis

on freedom of information in Indonesia: A case study of public

information disclosure in West Java Province. Journal of Social

Research & Policy, 9(1).

Utama, K. W., & Sukmadewi, Y. D. (2019). Dualisme Penyelesaian

Sengketa Permohonan Informasi Publik. Administrative Law &

Governance Journal, 2(4), 672-676.

Figure 2. The New Construction of Information Dispute Settlement

Conclusion

The dualism in settlement of public information disputes in

Indonesia arises because of the un-synchronization of the

Government Administrative Act and the Public Information

Openness Act. This problem must be resolved immediately to

provide legal certainty related to the resolution of information

disputes. The importance of resolving information disputes

quickly because it relates to fulfilling a sense of justice for

information applicants, fulfilling the right to information for the

community, and building good governance in the administration

of government, development, and public services.

New construction needs to be developed to find the best

format for public information dispute resolution in Indonesia. The

strengthening of the Information Commission as an independent

institution that functions to run the Public Information Openness

Act needs to be completed immediately. Ideally, information

dispute resolution must be minimized to enter the court

Susanto, S. N., & Wibawa, K. C. S. (2020). The Existence of The

Indonesia Peatland Restoration Agency in Perspective of

Organization and Authority. Administrative Law & Governance

Journal, 3(1), 92-103.

Subagiyo, H. (2009). Anotasi Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun

008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik. Jakarta: Komisi

Informasi Pusat.

Kurniati, N. (2016). “Mediasi-Arbitrase” Untuk Penyelesaian

Sengketa Tanah. Sosiohumaniora, 18(3), 197-207.

Thakore, D. (2013). Conflict and conflict management. IOSR Journal

of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 8(6), 07-16.

10. Prasetyo, T. (2019). Penyelesaian Sengketa Keterbukaan Informasi

Publik Dl Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Semarang. Jurnal Spektrum

Hukum, 13(2), 238-261.

1. Creutzfeldt, N., & Bradford, B. (2016). Dispute resolution outside of

courts: procedural justice and decision acceptance among users of

ombuds services in the UK. Law & Society Review, 50(4), 985-1016.

2. Budiman, A. (2017). Penguatan keterbukaan informasi publik.

Majalah Info Singkat Hukum Kajian Singkat Terhadap Isu Akta,

(

litigation). It must strengthen resolution through administrative

efforts and through the Information Commission. This is in line

with the principle of fast, simple, and low-cost justice.

The independence of the Information Commission can no

longer be postponed. It is necessary to separate the secretariat of

the Information Commission from the executive. The Information

Commission must also be independent in managing the budget,

and institutional restructuring is also needed. In connection with

the resolution of information disputes, the Information

Commission needs to be authorized to carry out the information

dispute decisions. Therefore, the parties comply with the

decisions set by the Information Commission.

9(8), Available:

http://www.lib.ui.ac.id/detail?id=20471787&lokasi=lokal.

3. Hermanto, B., & Sudiarawan, K. A. (2019). Rekonstruksi Pergeseran

Paradigma Upaya Administratif Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Pra

Pemilihan Kepala Daerah. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 16(3), 325-

17-20.

43.

4. Bintoro, R. W. (2016). Kajian Ontologis Lembaga Mediasi di

Pengadilan. Yuridika, 31(1), 121-142.

5. Mamudji, S. (2017). Mediasi Sebagai Alternatif Penyelesaian

Sengketa di Luar Pengadilan. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 34(3),

94-209.

6. Sufiarina, S.,

& Fakhirah, E. L. (2014). Kewajiban Upaya

Ethical issue

Nonajudikasi Sebagai Syarat Mendaftarkan Gugatan Guna

Mewujudkan Peradilan Sederhana, Cepat, dan Biaya Ringan

Authors are aware of, and comply with, best practice in

publication ethics specifically with regard to authorship

(Tinjauan atas Perma No. 1 Tahun 2008). Padjadjaran Journal of Law,

(

avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, manipulation

(1).

of figures, competing interests and compliance with policies on

research ethics. Authors adhere to publication requirements that

submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere

in any language.

17. Prayitno, D.E., Hanafi, A. Setiawan, A., & Samosir, D. (2015).

Pembaharuan Komisi Informasi (Menuju Komisi Informasi Yang

Mandiri Dan Profesional). Jakarta: Indonesian Parliamentary Center.

116