Advokasi Sengketa Perizinan OSS-RBA Perspektif Hukum Administrasi Negara Acara PTUN bagi Advokat Law Office 108
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35335/lebah.v19i5.568Keywords:
Acara PTUN, Advokasi, Hukum Administrasi Negara, OSS-RBA, Sengketa PerizinanAbstract
Implementasi sistem Online Single Submission berbasis risiko (OSS-RBA) sebagai instrumen perizinan berusaha di Indonesia menghadirkan tantangan baru bagi advokat, khususnya dalam ranah hukum administrasi negara dan praktik beracara di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN). Kegiatan pengabdian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh kesenjangan pemahaman advokat terhadap aspek substantif dan prosedural OSS-RBA, keterbatasan keterampilan litigasi administratif berbasis digital, serta keragaman kelembagaan profesi yang memengaruhi standar praktik advokasi. Tujuan kegiatan ini adalah meningkatkan kapasitas advokat dalam menangani sengketa perizinan OSS-RBA secara efektif dan strategis, sejalan dengan prinsip keadilan, akuntabilitas, dan transparansi. Metode pelaksanaan menggunakan pendekatan partisipatif dan studi kasus dengan teknik learning-by-doing melalui sosialisasi, workshop, simulasi peradilan, dan role-playing. Mitra kegiatan adalah Law Office 108 di Kota Mataram dengan jumlah peserta 30 advokat. Evaluasi dilakukan melalui pre-test dan post-test serta observasi praktik simulasi untuk mengukur peningkatan kompetensi. Hasil kegiatan menunjukkan adanya peningkatan pemahaman teknis OSS-RBA dan hukum acara PTUN sebesar ±70% (hard skills), serta peningkatan keterampilan advokasi praktis sebesar ±65% (soft skills), terutama dalam manajemen pembuktian, e-filing, dan penyusunan argumentasi hukum. Temuan utama mengindikasikan bahwa mayoritas advokat sebelumnya belum memiliki pemahaman komprehensif terkait OSS-RBA sehingga berimplikasi pada strategi litigasi yang kurang optimal. Kegiatan ini merekomendasikan pelatihan berkelanjutan, pengembangan modul berbasis kasus lokal, serta kolaborasi lintas organisasi advokat guna memperkuat profesionalisme advokat dalam menghadapi dinamika hukum administrasi digital.
References
Alonzo, D., Ellis, N. J., & Nguyen, H. (2025). A set of effective mentoring standards. A theoretically and empirically-driven framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 168, 105228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105228
Aritonang, D. M., Harijanti, S. D., Muttaqin, Z., & Abdurahman, A. (2025). Extensive Jurisdiction of State Administrative Courts in Indonesia: Interpretation and Legal Coherence Issues. Public Integrity, 27(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2023.2290750
Bauer, E., Heitzmann, N., & Fischer, F. (2022). Simulation-based learning in higher education and professional training: Approximations of practice through representational scaffolding. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 75, 101213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101213
Berenschot, W., Dhiaulhaq, A., Hospes, O., Afrizal, A., & Pranajaya, D. (2024). Corporate contentious politics: Palm oil companies and land conflicts in Indonesia. Political Geography, 114, 103166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103166
Borgesano, F., Maio, A. De, Laghi, P., & Musmanno, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and justice: a systematic literature review and future research perspectives on Justice 5.0. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(11), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2025-0117
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2025). Ethics in the world of automated algorithmic decision-making – A Posthumanist perspective. Information and Organization, 35(3), 100587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2025.100587
Cordella, A., & Gualdi, F. (2025). Policymaking in the digital era: Exploring techno-legal assemblages and their impact on policy formulation. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102023
Feng, R., Zhang, L., & Xu, H. (2025). Data-driven governance: Developing evaluation indices for China’s intelligent political and legal systems. Sustainable Futures, 10, 101207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.101207
Gideon, A. (2022). Transplanting EU competition law in ASEAN: Towards a context informed method of investigation. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 17(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2022.4
Kusdarini, E., Priyanto, A., Hartini, S., & Suripno, S. (2022). Roles of justice courts: settlement of general election administrative disputes in Indonesia. Heliyon, 8(12), e11932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11932
Lai, J. Y., & Hamilton, A. (2020). For whom do NGOs speak? Accountability and legitimacy in pursuit of just environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 82, 106374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106374
Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Janowski, T. (2021). Design principles for creating digital transparency in government. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101550
Nuis, W., Segers, M., & Beausaert, S. (2023). Conceptualizing mentoring in higher education: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 41, 100565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100565
Papagianneas, S., & Junius, N. (2023). Fairness and justice through automation in China’s smart courts. Computer Law & Security Review, 51, 105897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105897
Perdana, A., Arifin, S., & Quadrianto, N. (2025). Algorithmic trust and regulation: Governance, ethics, legal, and social implications blueprint for Indonesia’s central banking. Technology in Society, 81, 102838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102838
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2019). Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.004
Rizk, A., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Automated decision-making in public administration: Changing the decision space between public officials and citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102061
Roehl, U. B. U. (2023). Automated decision-making and good administration: Views from inside the government machinery. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101864
Scholta, H., Halsbenning, S., & Niemann, M. (2025). A coordination perspective on digital public services in federal states. Government Information Quarterly, 42(1), 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984
Setyowati, A. B., & Quist, J. (2022). Contested transition? Exploring the politics and process of regional energy planning in Indonesia. Energy Policy, 165, 112980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112980
Sung, H.-C. (2020). Can Online Courts Promote Access to Justice? A Case Study of the Internet Courts in China. Computer Law & Security Review, 39, 105461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105461
Szczepaniak, M., Geise, A., & Bariyah, N. (2022). Impact of institutional determinants on income inequalities in Indonesia during the Era Reformasi. Journal of Asian Economics, 82, 101526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101526
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Mizrahi, S. (2024). The digital governance puzzle: Towards integrative theory of humans, machines, and organizations in public management. Technology in Society, 77, 102530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102530
Widodo, A., Nurhaliza, W. O. S., & Akbar, M. R. (2025). Virtual criminal trials in Indonesia: Communication inequalities, power dynamics, and the challenges of justice. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102272
Yang, C., Gu, M., & Albitar, K. (2024). Government in the digital age: Exploring the impact of digital transformation on governmental efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, 123722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123722
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Firzhal Arzhi Jiwantara, Siti Hasanah, Jodi Haryadi, Irawati Intan Iskandar, Bayu Karunia Putra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
