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  
1
with the ease of accessing and obtaining information or correlated  
with public information disclosure.  
1
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  
th  
the United Nations on December 10 , 1948. In line with this law,  
Indonesia has enacted Law No. 14 of 2008 concerning Public  
th  
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]:  
2
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.  
2
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  
2
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)  
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
010  
011  
012  
013  
014  
015  
016  
017  
018  
019  
76  
419  
324  
377  
1354  
71  
64  
120  
60  
-
-
-
-
-
11  
14  
13  
7
(
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.  
63  
6
Total  
2928  
51  
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].  
2
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