Reformulation of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for Public Information Requests to Achieve Constructive Law Enforcement and Legal Certainty

The nature of law enforcement in resolving multi-dimensional information disputes has a logical consequence on the need for constructive law enforcement. This research aims to examine the forms of law enforcement that exist in resolving disputes over requests for public information and to formulate a constructive mechanism to realize a series of law enforcement procedures with legal certainty. This research is normative legal research using a statutory and conceptual approach. The results showed that law enforcement in the settlement of public information disputes consists of the objection, non-litigation adjudication, and litigation covering civil, state administration, and criminal law. In this case, The Criminal law instruments are placed as the final law enforcement if the relevant public agency does not carry out a decision that has permanent legal force. In addition, in the context of realizing comprehensive and constructive law enforcement, a Memorandum of Understanding was held between the Information Commission and the Police to synergize and effectively implement the criminal law as a final resort.


INTRODUCTION
Public information disclosure is one of the important elements in today's democracy.
Public information disclosure is basically a step towards realizing clean and good governance by opening any information related to the state administration to the public. 1 The characteristics of good governance vary widely, however, several main principles that underlie good governance | 27 The implementation of responsibility for the fulfillment of the right to public information by public agencies is of course not just an obligation but contains the essence that this public information must be conveyed properly and correctly, both in terms of procedures and in terms of substance. 7 This is then confirmed in Article 7 paragraph (2) of the KIP Law which states that public agencies are required to provide public information that is accurate, true, and not misleading.
Article 2 paragraph (1) of the KIP Law explains that any public information is open and can be accessed by any user of public information. Based on the UU KIP, public information is classified into several categories, namely public information that must be announced periodically, public information that must be announced immediately, information that must be available at any time, and information that is exempted. In addition, everyone has the right to submit requests for public information to public bodies including public information that is not included in the information classification as described above. In this case, applications are submitted to public bodies through the Information and Documentation Management Officer (PPID) as the official responsible for storing, documenting, providing and/or providing information services in each public body.
In the implementation of this public information service, there is a possibility of a dispute between the applicant and the public information provider (public agency). Article 1 point 5 of the KIP Law states that public information disputes are disputes that occur between public agencies and users of public information relating to the right to obtain and use information based on statutory regulations. A public information dispute arises if there is a reason to file an objection to the PPID supervisor against a request for information to a public body. For example, refusal of requests for information because it includes exempt information. The exception to information is based on testing by PPID about the consequences that arise if the information is provided to the public before declaring public information as exempt information. 8 This matter, in turn, can lead to disputes due to differences in views and interests between public agencies and requesters of information. In addition, disputes can be in the form of refusal of public bodies to provide the information requested by the applicant, not being responded to or fulfilled by requests for information, the information provided incomplete, inadequate or incorrect, imposition of unreasonable fees, and/or submission of information that exceeds the time that has been passed. stipulated in the KIP Law. 9 Disputes can also occur because public bodies do not provide or publish public information regularly, public information that must be announced immediately and/or public information that must be available at any time. 10 7 Mushi, A. (2018). Pemenuhan Hak atas Informasi Publik sebagai Tanggung Jawab Negara dalam Mewujudkan Good Governance. Lentera Hukum, 5(1), pp. 63 -76. https://doi.org/10.19184/ejlh.v5i1.7284 8 Retnowati,E. Op. Cit.,p. 57. 9 Prasetyo, T. (2016). Penyelesaian Sengketa Keterbukaan Informasi Publik di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Semarang. Jurnal Spektrum Hukum,13(2), p. 238 -261. http://dx.doi.org/10.35973/sh.v13i2.1091 10 Haugen, T., & Singh, A. (2015). Dispute Resolution Strategy Selection. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction Vol,7(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) LA.1943-4170.0000160 Regarding the disputes, the KIP Law regulates certain law enforcement efforts consisting of objections to the relevant public bodies, non-litigation adjudication through the Information Commission, lawsuits to courts including the District Court (Pengadilan Negeri) or State Administrative Court (Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara) as well as filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. 11 In addition, the KIP Law also regulates the enforcement of criminal law, whereby information applicants can report the relevant public bodies criminally as stipulated in Article 52 of the KIP Law.
The existence of various legal remedies provided in the KIP Law, shows that law enforcement of public information disputes is multidimensional, both non-litigation, as well as civil litigation or state administration (depending on the type of public body), and criminal. The question that arises is whether the public agency concerned can be reported directly in a criminal manner or must go through non-litigation adjudication through the Information Commission, then a lawsuit and cassation first, so that criminal law enforcement is placed as an ultimum remedium or should law enforcement procedures be carried out simultaneously. There is still no regulation related to a clear sequence of procedures which has the potential to create uncertainty in law enforcement.
For example, at the cassation level, the Supreme Court stated that the information requested was not public, but it turned out that the case file of the reported party had already been determined as P-21. This shows the potential for dualism or overlapping between law enforcement.
The absence of a clear sequence related to the settlement of disputes regarding prior information requests or enforcement of criminal law first is what actually has the potential to create legal uncertainty related to this law enforcement sequence. The principle of legal certainty is needed in the creation of laws and regulations because legal certainty is the main principle of various kinds of principles of the rule of law. 12 This is coherent with M. Kordela's opinion, which stated: 13 "The legal certainty as the superior principle of the system of formal principles of the rule of law justifies the legal validity of a defined group of values".
The absence of regulations that regulate the multidimensional law enforcement order has the potential to lead to unconstructive law enforcement. This unconstructive law enforcement then creates legal uncertainty and problems, especially when the decisions issued later contradict one another. Therefore, a constructive law enforcement mechanism is needed to provide legal certainty for the delivery of public information to the public.
Based on the description above, the problems that will be examined in this paper are, First, forms of law enforcement in resolving disputes over requests for public information based 11 Prasetyo, T. ibid. 12 Indratanto, S. P., Nurainun, N., & Kleden, K. L. (2020) the petitioner and the respondent in resolving information disputes so that the dispute resolution mechanism for public information disclosure through adjudication in law number 14 of 2008 on information disclosure takes a long time. This focus is certainly different from this article, which focuses on reconstructing the mechanism for resolving disputes over requests for public information to create constructive law enforcement and reflect legal certainty.

Article by Tony Prasetyo entitled: "Settlement of Disputes on Public Information
Disclosure at the Semarang State Administrative Court" published in the Journal of Legal Spectrum, Volume 13, Number 2, in 2016. In this article the focus of discussion is related to dispute resolution mechanisms. disclosure of public information in PTUN which incidentally means a dispute over information disclosure with state public agencies. This focus is certainly different from this article, in which the focus is not only on resolving disputes on public information disclosure in the PTUN but also in district courts. In addition, the focus of this article is to reconstruct the dispute resolution mechanism for requests for public information to create constructive law enforcement and reflect legal certainty.

METHOD
This research uses normative legal research, which is research that puts law as a norm system building consisting of principles, norms, rules of statutory regulations, court decisions, agreements and doctrines. 14 Normative research is carried out by analyzing statutory regulations or other legal materials related to public information disclosure.
The approach used is a statutory conceptual approach. The statutory approach is carried out by reviewing all laws and regulations and regulations relating to the legal issues under study. 15 In this study, researchers investigated all laws and regulations related to public information disclosure, especially the resolution of public information disputes. 14

Reformulation of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for
The conceptual approach is carried out by examining the development of views or doctrines in the science of law. 16 Through a conceptual approach, ideas that give birth to concepts, definitions, and legal principles that are relevant to the legal issues being studied can be identified. This approach is carried out with an understanding of the concept of disclosure of public information and the concept of procedural law for public information dispute resolution.  KIP Law, what is meant by "timely" is that the fulfillment of requests for information is carried out according to the time stipulated in the statutory regulations. The simple way is that the requested information can be accessed easily in terms of procedures and also easy to understand. Meanwhile, "low cost" is a fee that is charged proportionally based on cost standards in general. 19  With the written response from the public body concerned, it is possible that the applicant for information was not satisfied. For example, if the request is rejected, it could be because the information requested includes exempt information, the information provided is not as requested, incomplete, the imposition of unreasonable fees, and/or the delivery of information that exceeds the time specified in the laws and regulations. There is even a possibility that the petitioner will not be responded to or not fulfilled by the public body. This dissatisfaction can then lead to a dispute between the applicant and the public agency concerned so that law enforcement efforts are needed to resolve the dispute. Law enforcement is an activity to implement and apply the law and take legal action against any violation of the law committed by legal subjects either through judicial procedures or through arbitration procedures and other dispute resolution mechanisms (alternative disputes or conflict resolution) 20 Based on this opinion, law enforcement is applying the law to resolve violations or disputes.

A. Forms of Law Enforcement in Disputes Resolution on Requests for Public
In the KIP Law, various mechanisms for resolving information disputes have already been regulated. The first option is in dispute resolution through the information commission, namely Dispute Resolution through the Information Commission. The Information Commission has the authority to resolve disputes over requests for information through adjudication between information requesters and public bodies 21 According to Article 1 number 9 Information The Information Commission has the right not to respond to requests and determine a decision to terminate the dispute resolution process if the results of the examination prove that the applicant is not sincere and has good intentions. This provision aims to prevent irresponsible requests, just for fun or without clear intent and purpose as mandated by the KIP Law. In the end, this will actually hinder the tasks of state administration that are carried out by public agencies.
The non-litigation adjudication law enforcement by the Information Commission is carried out by the Board of Commissioners which consists of at least 3 commission members or more and must 22  In general, the material that will be examined by the Board of Commissioners in the adjudication process includes procedural and substantive aspects. The procedural aspect focuses on technical administration starting from the stages of submitting requests for public information, filing objections, submitting requests for resolving public information disputes, and completing the legal standing of the applicants. Meanwhile, the substantive aspect focuses on the material of public information that is requested or which becomes a public information dispute.
The dispute resolution process is carried out on the principles of fast, precise, low cost, and simple with the following flow: The court, in this case, includes the PTUN if the defendant is a state public body and the PN if the accused is a public body other than a state public body. 26 State Public Bodies include the executive, legislative, judiciary and other bodies whose main functions and tasks are related to the administration of the state which partially or all of the funds come from the APBN/APBD. Meanwhile, public bodies other than state public agencies are BUMN, BUMD, non-governmental organizations and political parties whose funds partly or all originate from the APBN/APBD, public donations, and/or abroad. "Public Bodies that deliberately do not provide, do not deliver, and/or do not publish Public Information in the form of Public Information periodically, Public Information which must be announced immediately, Public Information which must be available at any time, and/or Public Information which must be published immediately. granted based on a request following this Law, and results in losses for other people being subject to a maximum imprisonment of 1 (one) year and/or a maximum fine of Rp. 5,000,000.00 (five million rupiah) ".

Diagram 2. Flow of the Law Enforcement Process through the Information Commission
The criminal process in public information disputes constitutes a complaint offense as regulated in Article 57 of the KIP Law. Lamintang explained that the complaint offense means that a criminal act can only be prosecuted if there is a complaint from the aggrieved party. 28 Therefore, in the case of this request for information, a criminal process can only be carried out by law enforcement officials if there is a complaint to law enforcers, in this case, the police regarding an alleged criminal act of public information.
The formulation of criminal sanctions in Article 52 of the KIP Law is alternativecumulative, as seen by the use of the phrase "and/or", namely imprisonment for a maximum of 1 year and/or a maximum fine of Rp.5,000,000.00 (five million rupiahs). Therefore, in the case of this request for information, a criminal process can only be carried out by law enforcement officials if there is a complaint to law enforcers, in this case, the police regarding an alleged criminal act of public information. 29

Mechanism
The nature of law enforcement in resolving multi-dimensional information disputes has a logical consequence on the need for constructive law enforcement. Basically, constructive law enforcement is all efforts to improve and build a structure 32 so that the law enforcement process becomes a series of procedures that reflect the objectives of law, namely justice, legal certainty and benefit. 33 The KIP Law and several related regulations have indeed regulated a series of law enforcement procedures in the event of a sequential information dispute, starting from objection, non-litigation adjudication, lawsuits to cassation, but there are still 2 (two) problems, so there is still no clear procedural order so that it has the potential to create uncertainty in resolving disputes over constructive public information requests. The first problem is related to the content of the  which is formed by law or by the government at the behest of the law, the Provincial Regional People's Representative Council, the Governor, the Regency/City Regional People's Representative Council, the Regent / Mayor, the Village Head or equivalent.
(2) Legislation as referred to in paragraph (1)  This regulation is referred to as a policy rule because it contains a policy line that is determined 34 Belinfante A. D. (1983). Pokok-Pokok Hukum Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: Bina Cipta, p. 84.
administratively by the relevant agencies. 35 In terms of binding strength, this policy regulation is arguably not as strong as statutory regulations (regelend). Thus, it can be understood that the validity of this circular letter is only internal to the issuing institution. Based on its enactment, some call this circular letter a pseudo wetgeving law.
From its essence as a circular, a circular should not contain norms of behavior (gedrags normen), norms of authority (bevoegdheids normen), and stipulations (bepalende normen) 36   sanctions were no longer adequate. 39 In addition, it needs to be understood that the imposition of criminal sanctions should be carried out in a measured and careful manner because it is related to the policy of the elimination of freedom from human rights which is legalized by law. 40 In enforcing the law on public information disputes, other mechanisms are available that can be taken in advance, namely objection, adjudication, lawsuit and cassation. The application of the criminal mechanism as primum remedium in the context of information disclosure does not necessarily provide benefits, because it is not in line with the original goal, i.e to obtain public information, but instead turns into criminalizing the public agency or public official concerned.
Today's criminal law also recognizes the concept of restorative justice which focuses on the participation of interested parties to jointly identify the losses suffered and the fulfillment of the rights that must be received. 41 The mechanisms and procedures for criminal justice which initially focused on punishing the perpetrator turned into a mediation process or dialogue to reach an agreement regarding the settlement of cases that were fair and balanced for the parties. 42 Thus, conflict resolution does not emphasize the wrongdoing of the perpetrator to be subject to criminal sanctions, but rather emphasizes returning to its original state. 43 This concept has been manifested in a series of existing processes so that criminal law enforcement should be put in place as a last resort if the public agency does not carry out the Information Commission's decision which has permanent legal force. In addition, by enforcing criminal law as an ultimum remedium, the procedure becomes clearer and there is no possibility of conflicting decisions. This is because if a sentence is placed as a primum remedium it will cause problems when civil / state administration and criminal procedures are carried out simultaneously, i.e, there is the possibility of conflicting decisions, resulting in legal uncertainty as to which decision should be used.
In the context of placing criminal law enforcement as an ultimum remedium, which incidentally is obligatory to use other legal remedies first to create constructive law enforcement, it is necessary to have legal rules governing this matter. The ideal legal product is of course a law, but considering that the period of forming a law is not short, in the near future a concrete legal product that can be formed is an Memorandum of Understanding between the Information Commission and the National Police to synergize the two institutions in handling criminal acts of misuse of public information.

Reformulation of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for
In short, memorandum of understanding is an agreement made between one legal subject and another 44 , both within a state and between states to cooperate in various aspects of life for a certain period of time. 45 According to Munir Fuady, the Memorandum of Understanding is a preliminary agreement that regulates only basic matters. This means that the Memorandum of Understanding will be followed and explained in a more complete and detailed manner by the parties in the other agreement. 46  In the case of law enforcement of public information disputes, this Memorandum of Understanding aims to synergize the Information Commission and the National Police so that a clear mechanism is created in case the Information Commission's decision is legally enforceable 44 The legal subjects in the Memorandum of Understanding include public legal entities (eg State, state institutions, Provincial Governments, District /City Governments, government/non-government agencies) as well as private legal entities (for example Limited Liability Companies, Cooperatives, Foundations). 45 Salim, H. S., et.al. (2011). 4. In such a case, the Police directs the complaining party to first proceed with an objection, non-litigation adjudication, lawsuit, and cassation.
Through an arrangement like this, it will be clear who is authorized and when the police have the authority to handle criminal acts of public information disputes. The existence of a constructive regulation of this aspect of law enforcement, will create law enforcement related to requests for constructive public information and reflect the principle of legal certainty.
The second is the arrangement of the aspect of resource/expert/witness assistance. In this aspect, it is principally regulated, that the parties can assist each other as | 43 sources/experts/witnesses in carrying out their duties and authorities. This is intended, when police investigators need an Information Commission as a resource/expert/witness in carrying out their duties and authorities, it can be carried out well. For example, in the case of law enforcement training related to requests for information commissions, it is possible to request assistance from the Information Commission as a resource. The existence of regulations in this aspect aims to ensure that law enforcement related to requests for public information can be integrated (integrated) and constructive so that views on cases related to requests for information do not conflict with one another.
The third is the arrangement of the Data and/or Information Exchange aspect. In this aspect it is principally regulated, that: 1. The parties can request and/or provide data and/or information related to the implementation of their respective duties and authorities following the laws and regulations.
2. Requests for and/or data and/or information shall be submitted in writing and signed by the authorized official, accompanied by an explanation of the purposes and purposes for using the data and/or information.
3. Requests for and/or provision of data and/or information can be submitted electronically or non-electronically and coordinated through the respective liaison/person in charge based on the provisions of laws and regulations.
The existence of regulations in this aspect aims to create law enforcement related to integrated requests for information between the National Police and the Information Commission so that law enforcement is constructive and reflects the principle of legal certainty.

CONCLUSION
Law enforcement in the settlement of public information disputes consists of law enforcement through objection, non-litigation adjudication, and civil litigation, state administration, and criminal litigation. The formulation of a mechanism to create constructive law enforcement in the settlement of public information disputes is to place criminal law enforcement as the final step in the dispute resolution process (ultimum remedium). The applicant for information cannot criminally report the public agency involved if he has not gone through the process of the complaint, non-litigation adjudication, lawsuit, or cassation. Criminal law enforcement is only carried out if the relevant public body does not carry out a decision that has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde). In addition, cooperation and coordination between the Information Commission and the National Police through a Memorandum of Understanding is needed to streamline the handling of criminal acts of public information disputes. The formulation of the Memorandum of Understanding will at least regulate 3 main things, namely law enforcement, namely who is authorized and when the police have the authority to handle criminal acts of public