AbstrakPenatalaksanaan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan dan pengujian terhadap keputusan tata usaha negara dilakukan agar menjadi jelas dan memberi kepastian hukum. Dengan keluarnya UU No 30 Tahun 2014 tentang administrasi pemerintahan maka diperlukan penyelarasan dan penyesuaian atas peraturan peradilan tata usaha negara. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang (statute approach) dan penelitian hukum doctrinal. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa batas antara Pengadilan Umum dengan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam memutus sengketa dibidang hokum dibedakan atas jenis perkaranya. Pengadilan umum memutus perkara dibidang perdata dan hokum pidana. Seangkan PTUN memutus perkara gugatan terhadapa perbuatan hokum pemerintah. Adapun penerapan prinsip-prinsip good governance dan AAUPB memiliki persamaan dan perbedaan, yang antara keduanya saling memiliki hubungan untuk mewujudkan pemerintahan yang baik dan sesuai hukum. Abstract Management of the administration and testing of state administrative decisions made in

The Administrative Court has competence to settlement the administrative disputes. In the regulations of general election stated that election offence administrative disputes, election dispute process, adminsistrative disputes of election should be proceeded in Administrative Court, High Court of Administrative Court and Supreme Court. The existing regulations of Administrative Court do not regulates the procedural process to proceed general election administrative disputes, and the competence of Adminisitrative Court are limited. This becomes a legal gap in law enforcement and legal certainty. The issue is how the competence of administrative court to setllement the administrative dispute of general election based on the regulations.The method is juridical normative by statute approach, conceptual approach. Statute approach and conceptual approach by compared the relevant regulations.The result shows that the Administrative Court has competence to settlement the administrative dispute of general election. To give law certainty and law enforcement, the Supreme Court had legitimized some regulations to proceed the disputes settlement. The novelty is there should be a new regulation of Administrative Court consider the development and modernization.

The development of governance had been influenced the Administrative Court as a judiciary system which had specific competence. In the modern governance, the implementation of government's act is more complicated, economy and political issues, fast changing of social norms and information technology also give the powerful impact. Administrative Court has an authority to investigate, decide and settle the administrative dispute. Administrative Court has to protect the civil rights from the abuse of government's act. The issue is how the new paradigm of administrative court should be built in modern governance to protect civil rights and access to justice for the citizenship. The method is using normative and comparison approach. The results is new paradigm of Administrative Court is needed because it has to maintain the government's act as modern governance, access to justice and protect civil rights. The new paradigm must also accomodate the modern court as an effort to adjust with modern governance. Conclusion is Administrative Court has to move to new paradigm in order to supervise the government's act, protect the civil rights and access to justice.

No abstract