Author(s): Francisca Romana Harjiyatni
This paper seeks to describe the authority of state administrative judges in revising the Decision of State Administration. Referring to the legislation in force in Indonesia which specifically regulates the judiciary of state administration, and is contextualized with various state administrative literature and the views of constitutional law experts, the results of the study show that the judges are limited to only stating the decision of State Administrative Court is against the law invitation or General Principles of Good Governance or not, so the decision of Administrative Court is declared null or invalid. The judge can not provide direction to provide a concept of decision of Administrative Court as to what gives more justice for society. Judges tend to accommodate certain individual interests, and ignore other interests that should be deemed necessary. Based on these findings, the Judge can be given the authority to revise the decisions of government officials, in the event that the power separation theory is not rigidly translated. During this time, the authority of the judge did not include the authority to revise the decision of Administrative Court, because the authority was considered to hit the principle of separation of powers. The judge's authority to revise the decision of Administrative Court is considered a form of judicial interference with the executive. Based on the author's opinion, the judge's authority to revise the decision of Administrative Court is not a judicial interference with the executive, but is part of the judge's authority to resolve the dispute in the Administrative Court. In resolving a dispute, the Administrative Court must examine, decide and resolve the dispute fairly and thoroughly. This can only be achieved if the judge of the Administrative Court is given the authority to revise the decision of Administrative Court.