REFORMULATION OF THE POSITION OF AUXILIARY STATE INSTITUTIONS AS LEGAL STANDING RELATED TO AUTHORITY DISPUTES OF STATE INSTITUTION

This research aims to examine the reformulation meaning of legal standing of state institutions in authority disputes cases between state institutions and the juridical implications of the legal standing of auxiliary state institutions as parties in the authority disputes cases of state institutions. Authority disputes may arise along with the development of state institutions based on their needs and interests in dealing with certain legal issues. This approach uses a normative method with descriptive analytical specifications. The results of the study show that the meaning of state institutions which can be the legal standing in the authority disputes cases between state institutions is not only interpreted by state institutions that are formed and given authority according to the 1945 Constitution. Auxiliary state institutions, which on the one hand carry out their functions as a form of derivation from the 1945 Constitution, can become state institutions litigating at the Constitutional Court. Regarding the implications of determining legal standing for state institutions that are formed by laws to litigate at the Constitutional Court, in fact it does not change the authority of the Constitutional Court itself according to Article 24c of the 1945 Constitution. The state institutions that become the legal standing at the Constitutional Court must of course be able to prove that their objectum litis is a derivation of the constitution.


INTRODUCTION
In general, the development of state institutions in Indonesia is currently growing and increasing rapidly. The need to deal with a state problem requires the establishment of an independent state institution as well as an ad-hoc institution. The complexity of state institutions in Indonesia sadly follows the development of existing problems, so it can be said that the formation of a state institution is based on certain needs that cannot be handled by existing state institutions.
One of the most important phenomena after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution of the 2 system. These institutions were formed with different legal bases, both with the constitution and laws, as well as some were even formed by presidential decrees (Asshiddiqie, 2003).
The various legal bases for the formation also have implications for the authority possessed by these independent state institutions. Referring to the basis for the formation of state institutions based on statutory regulations, state institutions can be divided into several groups, i.e. state institutions formed based on the constitution, state institutions formed based on laws and state institutions formed based on the rules under the law. This has resulted in the commissions running independently and not complementing each other, so that in further implications it may result in the effectiveness of the existence of the commissions in the constitutional structure still not applied in accordance with the noble goal of forming an extra-legislative institution, the extra-executive, and the extra-judicial.
The above fact has at least two consequences as follows: 1) the juridical legitimacy of the existence of these auxiliary state institutions is so weak that constantly faced obstacles in implementing its authority; 2) the auxiliary state institutions operated independently without any synergistic work systematics and can support one another so that the results of the work of an auxiliary state institution are often less beneficial for other auxiliary state institutions (Sepriyono, 2014).
Referring to the above statement, disputes might occur between state institutions, which can also result from the existence of the same contra-authority between state institutions. This is of course very detrimental to a state institution in exercising its authority. These disputes can be resolved through the legal recourse stipulated by the constitution, that is in the provisions of Article  Authority … Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Mirja Fauzul Hamdi Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 1-21 3 Court is to resolve disputes over the authority of state institutions whose authority is given by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia . From 2004 to 2016, applications for disputes over the authority of state institutions (SKLN) were submitted to the Constitutional Court as many as 25 cases with a variety of disputed issues and also filed by various applicants (Huda, 2017 Based on the description above, there are two problems to be discussed: 1) How is the reformulation of the meaning of the legal standing of state institutions in the disputes authority cases between state institutions? 2) What are the juridical implications of the legal standing of supporting state institutions as parties in the authority disputes cases of state institutions?

RESEARCH METHODS
The method is used to emphasize how the research was conducted (Sulaiman, 2018). This study applies the normative legal method (Ibrahim, 2013), by using legal norms in statutory regulations, both those are currently in force and those are no longer valid. The study only used secondary data (Soekanto & Mahmudji, 2001). This research was conducted by applying a positive legal inventory as an initial and fundamental activity (Sunggono, 1997), related to research and 5 study of reformulation of the position of auxiliary state institutions as legal standing regarding disputes over the authority of state institutions.

1) Reformulating the Meaning of Legal Standing of State Institutions in Authority Disputes
Before discussing further, first, we will discuss several theories and concepts related to the above two problems, the concept of legal standing and disputes over authority. In general, it can be understood that legal standing means the legal position. The definition of legal position is a condition in which a person or party is determined to meet the requirements and therefore has the right to file a petition for a dispute or case before a court (Harjono, 2008). In some procedural law references stated that legal standing is a further adaptation of the term personae standi in judicio, which means a person's right to file an application/lawsuit to court (2008).
There are two types of rights filed as the basis for a lawsuit/petition, first rights claims that contain disputes called "lawsuits", and then rights claims that do not contain disputes called "petitions" (Mertokusumo, 1981). Maruarar Siahaan stated in his book that "Legal Standing is a concept used to determine whether an applicant is sufficiently affected so that a dispute is brought before the court. The requirements for legal standing have met the requirements if the applicant has a real interest and is legally protected" (Siahaan, 2006).
In the context of proceeding at the Constitutional Court, not everyone can become a party and may submit an application to the Constitutional Court, even though that person has legal interests as it is known in civil procedural law. In civil procedural law, there is an adagium point d'interet point d'action, that is, if there is a legal interest, it is possible to file a lawsuit. Standing or personae standi in judicion is the right or legal position to file a lawsuit or petition before the court (standing to sue) (Siahaan, 2006). That Standing is a concept used to determine whether one party is sufficiently affected so that a dispute is brought before the court. It is a right to take steps to formulate legal issues in order to obtain a final decision from the court. (Ramdan, 2006). The concept of legal standing as follows: legal standing is a condition in which a person or party is determined to meet the requirements and therefore has the right to submit a request for disputes settlement or cases before the Constitutional Court. Applicants who do not have legal standing will accept the Constitutional Court's decision which stated that their petition cannot be accepted (niet ontvankelijk verklaard) (Siahaan, 2006). The dictum "direct interest in the disputed authority" in paragraph (2) is the basis for the emphasis that every applicant who feels aggrieved is an applicant who has a direct interest in the disputed authority, even though it has been limited the authority is the authority that given and stated in the 1945 Constitution. 7 Therefore, according to Jimly Asshiddiqie, in addition to approaching the problem in terms of the subject of the institution, it also can be approached in terms of the object of constitutional disputed authority between the state institutions concerned. The main issue is whether what is regulated and determined in the 1945 Constitution is the function of an organ referred to in the 1945 Constitution and whether the exercise of its authority is hampered or disturbed due to certain decisions from other institutions. The important thing is that it can be clearly proven whether the Applicant's institution has the authority granted by the 1945 Constitution and whether the said constitutional authority has been harmed by certain decisions of the requested institution (Asshiddiqie, 2005).
Scope of disputed authority of state institutions. A state institution is a legal entity that has the authority to exercise its authority in accordance with the rules of its formation. Many definitions of state institutions have been discussed, both books and other scientific articles. Janpatar Sinamora explained in his writing that "state institutions are divided into several types which in principle have the following general duties: maintaining stability or stability in security, politics, law, human rights and culture; create an environment that is conducive, safe, serene and harmonious; become an association body between the state and its people; be a source of inspiration or inspiration for all people; eradicating criminal acts of corruption, collusion and nepotism as well as various other forms of crime; and help run the state government " (Simamora, 2016). In simple terms, the term state organs or state institutions can be distinguished from the words private organs or institutions, community institutions or what is commonly referred to as NGOs (non-governmental organizations) (Asshiddiqie, 2005). Hendra Nurtjahjo in his writing stated that in general, these state equipment can be classified into: 1) Institutions (organs) that come directly from the constitution; 2) Institutions (organs) that do not come directly from the constitution (derivatives). (Nurtjahjo, 2005). The term "source" in the above sentence refers to the source of institutional authority, whether it is given directly by the constitution or not. The two types of institutions Meanwhile, the definition of dispute can be seen in the Indonesian dictionary which means: 1) Something that causes differences of opinion, quarrel, conflict; 2) Contention, disputes; and 3) Case (in court) (Ali, 1995). In English, there are two words that have a parallel meaning with the definition of the word dispute above, i.e. the words conflict and dispute. Both words are meaningful as nouns and as intransitive verbs. The word conflict as a noun means quarrels, strife and contradictions. Meanwhile, as an intransitive verb, conflict means contradiction. While, the word disputes as a noun means a dispute, quarrel. Whereas, as an intransitive verb means to refute (Echols & Shadily, 2003).
So that the stratification meaning of the word "dispute", disputes in a low, medium and disputes in a high level. The first definition, namely disagreements, quarrels, and arguments is a dispute in a low level. Thus, differences of opinion, paralleled by quarrels and arguments, are disputes to a lesser degree. In this case there has been no physical contact, but only a different point of view on a problem which then creates a difference of opinion.
A dispute to a moderate degree means contention or conflict. In this case, it is not just a difference of opinion, but physical contact can occur as an expression of the difference in opinion.
Dispute resolution sometimes cannot be done immediately, but required the intervention of a third party as a mediator, even through the competent authorities, or through reconciliation efforts. This dispute can escalate to a high-level dispute, known as a case. In this case, the dispute is resolved through the court (Nurmawati, 2016).
The above description shows that the definition of conflict is the same as the definition of contradiction, but it is not the same as the definition of dispute. The word dispute has a broader meaning than the word conflict and contradiction. A dispute can be interpreted as a case, whereas a conflict and contradiction explicitly cannot be interpreted as a case.
Black's Law Dictionary used the word conflict in the same sense as a dispute, in the meaning of dispute. It also explains about disputes of authority (Conflict of authority) as a type of dispute, but only limited to disputes of authority between judicial bodies, especially general courts, both regarding absolute and relative competence.
Regarding authority, it can be equated with competency, that is a right or power to act. Robert Bierstedt stated that authority is institutionalized power (Arifin, 2005). with rights. This is actually an unclear and difficult concept; because, the criteria for differentiation are not clear. Thus, the word authority essentially means power (Hadjon, 1993).
Ridwan HR in the book State Administrative Law explained that along with the main pillar of a rule of law, the principle of legality, based on this principle it is implied that government authority comes from statutory regulations, meaning that the source of authority for the government is statutory regulations (Ridwan, 2016) Theoretically, the authority that comes from these laws and regulations is obtained in three ways, as defined by HD van Wijk/Willem Konijnenbelt, as follows: Delegation is the delegation of governmental authority from one organ of government to another organ of government; and 3. A mandate is applied when an organ of government allows its authority to be exercised by another organ on its behalf (Indroharto, 2000) To understand state institutions which include their definition, conception and institutionalization, they must be based on a new paradigm of the constitutional system that has been embodied in the amendment of the 1945 Constitution as a manifestation of the will of the people and democratic ideals. In the framework of discussing state organizations and institutions the discussion can be started by questioning the nature of power which is institutionalized or organized into the state building. Year 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court, and until now there has been no fundamental change from the guidelines for this procedural law even though the Constitutional Court law itself has undergone amendments.
As previously discussed regarding legal standing, it can be understood that legal standing is the legal position of the applicant and the respondent in the litigation process at the trial. So that the legal standing of the applicant and respondent is required to comply with the conditions that have been determined.
Like other cases under the authority of the Constitutional Court, legal standing is an important part of examination at the Constitutional Court, so it can be concluded that legal standing is the key factor to a case to enter the subject matter of the petition submitted. The Applicant and the Respondent both have the right to declare an authority whose object of the dispute is the contested It is interesting to note that the subjectum and objectum litis statements of the two institutions.
KPI feels that its constitutional authority has been compromised by the policies taken by the government. According to Suwoto Mulyosudarmo, in his book, KPI believed that constitutional losses that are harmed by the government are derived from the concept of granting power.
Basically, the power given can be distinguished from the attributive acquisition of power and the derivative acquisition of power in nature. The acquisition of attributive power leads to the formation of power. Because it comes from a state that does not yet exist. Thus, the characteristics of power attribution are the formation of power that created new powers and must be conducted by an agency whose formation is based on statutory regulations (authorized organs) (Mulyosudarmo, 1997).
Furthermore, Suwoto also added that the Constitution as reglement van attributie is understood as the legal basis for the formation of various powers which are then given to State institutions whose formation is based on the Constitution (Mulyosudarmo, 1997 should be grounded and can be declared as having legal standing.

2) Legal Standing Implications of State Institutions in Authority Disputes
State institutions that mentioned in the guidelines procedure of authority dispute for State institutions can be the applicant or the defendant make it very difficult to resolve authority disputes of State institutions that are confronted with cases of independent State institutions and also that are not mentioned in the guidelines procedure with authority disputes of State institutions. analogy (analogische interpretatie) as an interpretation based on analogy, the existing regulations are treated against actions that are not strictly regulated in law (Eddyono, 2008).

The interpretation of State Institutions can be litigated in the Constitutional
Determining subjectum and objectum litis in the authority disputes cases of State institutions whose authority is granted by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the Constitutional Court conducted grammatical interpretation (grammatische intrerpretatie). According to the Constitutional Court, the placement of the word "dispute of authority" before the word "state institution" has a very important meaning because in essence what is meant by Article 24C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is indeed a "dispute of authority" or about what is being disputed is not about "who is disputing". The word state institution in article 24C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution must be closely relate and not separate from the phrase "whose authority is given by the constitution". There is an implicit recognition that there are "State institutions whose authority is granted by the constitution". For this reason, in determining subjectum and objectum litis in the authority disputes cases of State institutions whose authority is granted by the 1945 Constitution, the authorities granted in the Constitution first determine then the institution. 15 The contradiction that occurred could be the result of fighting over one or more of the powers of each of these state institutions which are regulated in statutory regulation. Differences of opinion and the respective interpretations of an authority regulated in a certain legal rule cause two or more state institutions to dispute, so that legal remedies are required to resolve it.
However, the constitution has determined and limited "state institutions" that can be handled in the authority disputes cases by the Constitutional Court. This limitation is due to the orientation of the amendment of the 1945 Constitution at the beginning of the reformation which tends to look at the institutions that implement state power. Nevertheless, we do not see further that in the future there will be more and more supporting institutions formed by the rule of law under the 1945 Constitution.
To determine the derivation powers of authority from the 1945 Constitution, it is necessary to understand the concept of granting power. Basically, the power granted can be distinguished from the acquisition of power which is attributive in nature and the acquisition of power which is derivative in nature. The power that comes from a state that does not yet exist into existence, the power that arises with attributive formation is original (oorsponkelijk). Thus the characteristics of power attribution are the formation of power to create new powers and must be conducted by an agency whose formation is based on statutory regulations (authorized organs) (Mulyosudarmo, 1997).
According to Henk Van Marseven stated that: "if examined carefully, the Dutch Basic Law, as well as the Basic Laws of other countries are an attribution regulation (reglement van attributie)". Suwoto Mulyosudarmo also explained that: "The Basic Law as reglement van attributie is understood as the legal basis for the formation of various powers which are then given to State institutions whose formation is based on the Basic Law" (Mulyosudarmo, 1997).
After having the authority, the State institution (legal subject) can carry out the formation of power (attribution) or delegate its authority to other legal subjects. The delegation of authority is

Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Reformulation of the Position of Auxiliary State Institutions as Legal Standing Related to Authority … Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 1-21. Mirja Fauzul Hamdi 16 derivative (afgleid). Aflageid power is power handed down or delegated to other parties which can be in the form of a delegate (Mulyosudarmo, 1997).
In a dispute that has legal standing is a State institution. Where the condition of a person or a party is determined to meet the requirements and therefore has the right to submit requests for settlement of disputes or cases before the Constitutional Court (Harjono, 2008).
Requirements can be interpreted in the criteria for legal standing of State institutions to be able to file cases of authority disputes of State institutions that are also a causal relationship of losses experienced in exercising their authority with the authorities exercised by other institutions.
To assess whether a State institution has legal standing or not, the below criteria can be used: (1)  Discussing supporting state institutions (staats auxiliary organ) can of course be understood based on their formation. Even so, the reasons for its formation are based on the particular needs and interests of the government itself. However, in the context of implementing checks and balances, of course it also has its own impact on these state institutions in exercising their authority.
However, if reviewed Article 2 Paragraph (1)  institutions as auxiliary institutions which in practice are mostly formed by law. In his opinion that the authority which is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution but which is necessary and appropriate to exercise its constitutional authority constituted the authority granted by the Basic Law even though it is clearly and firmly described in the Law (Siahaan, 2010). The author also agrees with Maruarar Siahaan's opinion that there needs to be an interpretation that provided an expansion to see the real authority inherent and implied in the authority written explicitly in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which can be seen as the principal authority.
Thus, the measure to determine whether the institution in question is a State institution or not, it is not only based on the structural position of the institution concerned in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not its official name but also must see the function of the State institution in this regard based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

CONCLUSIONS
The meaning of state institutions that become legal standing in the authority disputes cases between state institutions is not only interpreted as state institutions that are formed and given institutions that become the legal standing at the Constitutional Court must be able to prove that their objectum litis is a derivation of the constitution in addition to the loss of authority regulated in the legal basis of its own formers.