










































Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 89 

 

 

 
 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of 
Administrative Court Decision 

Nyoman Martana; Putu Ade Hariestha Martana; Kadek 
Agus Sudiarawan; Bagus Hermanto 

Faculty of Law Udayana University 

email: degust.ugm@gmail.com 
 

ABSTRACT 

After the enactment of the Law of Government Administration implied to regulation 

concerning the execution of the Administrative Court Judgment. Some pro-cons academic 

and practice discourses, arguing that the enactment of the Law of Government Administration 

is the culminating point from the limited role of the Administrative Court on enforcing 

the administrative law and the argument that the regulation of the Law of Government 

Administration contains various ambiguities norms in concern with implementation in the 

Administrative Procedural Law System. This study aims to analyze and discuss concerning 

regulation of the provisions of the Administrative Court Ruling execution, constrains in 

judgment execution and the legal certainty for the justice seekers in the provisions of 

the Administrative Court Ruling execution after the enactment of the Law of Government 

Administration. This paper is using normative and empirical method. The data that using 

consisted of primary and secondary data, were analyzed using qualitative methods. This 

study results is presented in a descriptive analysis paper. 

Keywords:Legal Certainty; Administrative Court Ruling; The Law of Administrative Court; 

The Law of Government Administration. 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 

The provisions of Article 24 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic 

of Indonesia (hereinafter referred to as the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia) 

stipulates that judicial power is exercised by a Supreme Court and the judicial body 

underneath it within the General Judiciary, the Religious Courts, the Military Courts, the 

Administrative Court, and by a Constitutional Court.1 This provision confirms that Indonesia 

as a state of law as affirmed Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic 

of Indonesia.2 This means that the law must be a guideline, and must be obeyed and also 

upheld by citizens and the state. In addition, in the implementation of duties and authorities, 

the government must be guided by the law and be able to account for these tasks.3 

 

1This provision was born after the reform and amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 
between 1999 – 2002. Vide Jr., Dominic J. Nardi. (2018). Can NGOs Change the Constitution? Civil Society and 
the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Contemporary Southeast Asia, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, 40(2), p. 253. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.1355/cs40-2d 

2Yusa, I Gede, et al. (2016). Hukum Tata Negara: Pasca Perubahan UUD NRI 1945. Malang: Setara Press, 
p. 103. 

3Hayat, Hayat. (2015). Keadilan sebagai Prinsip Negara Hukum: Tinjauan Teoritis dalam Konsep Demokrasi. 
Padjadjaran: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), Universitas Padjadjaran, 2(2), p. 388. doi: https://doi.org/10.22304/ 
pjih.v2n2.a10 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
mailto:degust.ugm@gmail.com


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

90 | 

 

 

 
 

The prerequisites of the Indonesian rule of law are marked by the existence of 

an administrative or state administrative court, which is regulated through Law No. 5 of 

1986 jo. Law No. 9 of 2004 jo. Law No. 51 of 2009 concerning State Administrative Court 

(hereinafter referred to as State Administrative Court Law) as the basis for the birth of 

administrative justice in the Indonesian legal system. 

The existence of the State Administrative Court has urgency in relation to review 

the validity of government actions, namely the issuance of Administrative Decision.4 The 

Administrative Decision which is detrimental to a civil person or legal entity as the object 

of a lawsuit for a state administrative dispute in accordance with the absolute competence 

of the Administrative Court. This is potentially a preventive measure for government 

actions that have the potential to be incompatible with the laws and/or general principles 

of good governance. On the other hand, this can be interpreted as legal protection for 

the people. The provisions of Article 47 of the Administrative Court Law regulate the 

absolute competence of the Administrative Court to examine, decide upon and resolve 

state administrative disputes. 

The administrative dispute is a dispute arising in the field of state administration 

between a person or a legal entity with a state administrative agency or agency both at 

the center and in the region, as a result of the issuance of a state administration decision, 

including an employment dispute based on statutory regulations, as stipulated in Article 

1 number 4 of the Administrative Court Law. Whereas, the meaning of a Administrative 

Decision is a written stipulation issued by a state administration body or official containing 

legal action on state administration which is based on concrete, individual and final laws 

and regulations that lead to legal consequences for a person or legal entity civil law as 

referred to in the provisions of Article 1 number 3 of the Administrative Court Law. 

The existence of institutions with the authority to review the validity of government 

actions is becoming increasingly important in the welfare state. Philosophically, the 

principle of the rule of law of Indonesia is a dynamic rule of law state or the principle of the 

welfare state, which emphasizes in the welfare state,5 state interference is so extensive 

and profound through government actions in the life of the community in the context of 

service to the community to achieve the welfare of the people, as one of the country’s 

goals. 

The results of review of whether or not a governmental action in the form of a 

Administrative Court Judgment is expected to be truly carried out in order to achieve 

 

 
4Bedner, Adriaan. (2013). Indonesian Legal Scholarship and Jurisprudence as an Obstacle for Transplanting 

Legal Institutions. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Cambridge University Press, 5(2), pp. 260 – 261. doi: https:// 
doi.org/10.1017/S1876404512001145 

5Yusa, I Gede, & Hermanto, Bagus. (2017). Gagasan Rancangan Undang-Undang Lembaga Kepresidenan: 
Cerminan Penegasan dan Penguatan Sistem Presidensiil Indonesia. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Kementerian 
Hukum dan Hak Azasi Manusia RI, 14(3), p. 316. 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 91 

 

 

 
 

openness and guarantee access to justice for the people.6 The emphasis is on realizing 

legal certainty to realize legal protection for the people from government actions in 

carrying out government functions.7 This also means that the Administrative Court for the 

community becomes an oversight body for government actions that always upholds the 

dignity and dignity of the people, and is always guided by the law.8 

Legal certainty is provided through the state administrative court which results 

in a court decision. In the case of granting a claim by the plaintiff by stating that the 

administrative decision of the defendant is declared invalid or invalid, a court decision can 

determine the obligations that must be carried out by the defendant namely the revocation 

of the relevant administrative decision, also the revocation accompanied by the issuance 

of a new state administrative decision, or issuance of state administrative decisions in 

the case of a lawsuit referring to Article 3 of the Administrative Court Law. This obligation 

can be accompanied by the imposition of compensation or rehabilitation. In this case, the 

decision of the Administrative Court can also give certain rights to the disputing parties, 

especially the plaintiff. The rights granted through a court decision should be enjoyed 

properly by the plaintiff through the court’s decision. 

In the Administrative Court, court decisions that are inkracht van gewisjde or have 

legal force still contain the nature of erga omnes namely the court’s decision applies to 

anyone and is not limited to the parties to the dispute.9 If the party who gets the right 

cannot properly enjoy his rights arising based on a court decision, it means that there has 

been a denial of justice, and a denial of legal certainty and legal protection of the people.10 

Decisions of the Administrative Court give rise to subjective rights on the one hand 

and on the other hand give rise to obligations for the other party to fulfil those subjective 

rights. For the sake of legal certainty, the rights arising as a result of the decision must 

be enjoyed by those entitled to through a predetermined mechanism.11 The way to obtain 

subjective rights arising from decisions or those contained in condemnatoir decisions 

is done through requests for implementation of decisions/execution of decisions. In the 

 
6Butt, Simon. (2013). Freedom of Information Law and Its Application in Indonesia: A Preliminary Assessment. 

Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press, 8(1), p. 12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ 
S2194607800000879 

7Bunga, Marten. (2018). Tinjauan Hukum Terhadap Kompetensi Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam 
Menyelesaikan Sengketa Tanah. Gorontalo Law Review, Universitas Gorontalo, 1(1), p. 44. doi: https://doi. 
org/10.32662/golrev.v1i1.155 

8Sudarsono. (2011). Pilihan Hukum dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara di Pengadilan 
Tata Usaha Negara. In I Gede Yusa (Ed.), Demokrasi, HAM & Konstitusi: Perspektif Negara – Bangsa untuk 
Menghadirkan Keadilan; "Kado untuk Sang Guru Prof. Dr. I Dewa Gede Atmadja, S.H., M.S. Malang: Setara Press, 
p. 241. 

9Yuslim. (2015). Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, pp. 5 – 6. 
10Effendi, Maftuh. (2014). Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia Suatu Pemikiran ke Arah Perluasan 

Kompetensi Pasca Amandemen Kedua Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum dan 
Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 3(1), p. 26. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.3.1.2014.25-36 

11Suhariyanto, Budi. (2019). Urgensi Kriminalisasi Contempt of Court untuk Efektivitas Pelaksanaan 
Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Konstitusi, Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, 16(1), p. 198. doi: https://doi. 
org/10.31078/jk16110 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.3.1.2014.25-36


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

92 | 

 

 

 
 

Administrative Court Law, the implementation of decisions is regulated in the provisions of 

Article 115 through Article 119. 

The court’s ruling on the new Administrative Court has executive power and can be 

implemented/executed after obtaining permanent legal force.12 Copies of decisions which 

are inkracht van gewisjde or have permanent legal force by the Registrar of Courts are 

delivered to the parties who are litigants. There is an obligation of the defendant to obey 

and implement the contents of the court’s decision in good faith and responsibility. If the 

defendant does not intend to implement the decision in the case of a decision concerning 

the obligation for the defendant to revoke the Decision that has been issued, then within 4 

(four) months after the court’s decision which is inkracht van gewisjde, the disputed decision 

has no legal force anymore, and no more execution attempts are needed. This is because 

by automatically passing the four month deadline, the disputed decision has no legal force. 

When the court ruling establishes an obligation for the defendant to revoke the 

administrative decision of the sued state and issue a new state administrative decision, 

and within a period of three months the defendant does not implement it, the plaintiff has 

the right to submit an application to the Chair of the State Administrative Court to order the 

defendant party to carry out the court decision order. Based on the request of the plaintiff, 

the Chair of the Court orders the defendant to carry out the order in the Court’s decision. 

If the order in the verdict is not carried out, the defendant will be subject to a number 

of forced efforts in the form of payment of a sum of forced money and/or administrative 

sanctions.13 This is done or not depends on the defendant himself. If after the imposition 

of the forced attempt the verdict is not carried out also by the defendant, this will be 

announced through the local print media by the Registrar. However, problems related to 

the non-implementation of court decisions that give certain rights to the plaintiff, opening 

opportunities for the defendant to be reluctant to implement the ruling and in the case of 

court decisions that are not possible to impose its implementation has implications for the 

absence of legal certainty. 

The birth of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (hereinafter 

referred to as the Government Administration Law) then made various changes related 

to material laws and formal laws that apply to administrative law.14 The Government 

Administration Law in addition to regulating material legal provisions, also provides formal 

legal arrangements that apply to the state administrative procedural system. In fact, this 

regulation has caused various confusions by various related parties (especially judges) in 

12Rumadan, Ismail. (2012). Problematika Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum 
dan Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 1(3), p. 438. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.1.3.2012.435-462 

13Lubna, Lubna. (2015). Upaya Paksa Pelaksanaan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Memberikan 
Perlindungan Hukum kepada Masyarakat. Jurnal Ius: Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan, Universitas Mataram, 3(1), pp. 
166 – 167. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12345/ius.v3i7.205 

14Hadjon, Philipus M. (2015). Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Konteks Undang-Undang No. 30 Th. 2014 
tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 4(1), pp. 53 – 54. doi: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.4.1.2015.51-64 

http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.1.3.2012.435-462
http://dx.doi.org/10.12345/ius.v3i7.205
http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.4.1.2015.51-64


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 93 

 

 

 
 

the administration of administrative law in the Administrative Court. Some forms of changes 

in the regulation of the Government Administration Law are related to the regulation of the 

expansion of the meaning of state administrative decisions as objects of state administration 

disputes, arrangements related to positive fictitious decisions, the authority to adjudicate the 

abuse of authority by the government apparatus, arrangements related to administrative 

efforts, not governing the limitation of the amount of compensation and including special 

arrangements related to the implementation of the decision becomes an urgency to be 

comprehensively studied after the entry into force of the Government Administration Law. 

Based on the background description, this paper focuses on the subject of 

discussion, namely legal certainty in the execution of the Decree of the Administrative 

Court both through the regulation of the Administrative Court Law and the Government 

Administrative Law, by raising several formulations of the problem namely how the execution 

provisions decisions, constraints faced, and how legal certainty for the community in the 

provisions of the execution of the decision of the Administrative Court after the enactment 

of the Government Administration Law. 

The issue through legal research is an interesting and important issue in the 

legal system of the Administrative Court. The initiative raised the legal issues in this 

study which is intended as an effort to strengthen the state administrative procedural law 

system specifically to measure the strength of the execution of decisions and answer 

various confusion arising from all elements in the state administrative procedural law 

system specifically regarding the regulation of provisions related to the execution of the 

Administrative Court decision State Enterprises are good at two different laws namely the 

Administrative Court Law and the Government Administrative Law. 

 
METHOD 

 

This paper is based on a normative writing methodology format with the image of 

the law as a prescriptive discipline,15 focusing on the law as a norm16 or a norm system or 

hierarchy of laws and regulations17 and using empirical juridical writing methods. The merger 

of the two methods in order to complete the normative study through empirical research in 

the form of field research that is focused on the second problem, namely on the Denpasar 

Administrative Court with non-probability sampling technique with a purposive type on the 

Chairperson of Denpasar Administrative Court and Judge on the State Administrative Court 

 
 

15Choudhury, Nafay. (2017). Revisiting Critical Legal Pluralism: Normative Contestations in the  Afghan 
Courtroom. Asian Journal of Law and Society, Cambridge University Press, 4(1), p. 231. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ 
als.2017.2 

16Sonata, Depri Liber. (2014). Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Empiris: Karakteristik Khas dari 
Metode Meneliti Hukum. Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Universitas Lampung, 8(1), pp. 24 – 25. doi: https://doi. 
org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v8no1.283 

17Petroski, Karen. (2013). Legal Fictions and the Limits of Legal Language. International Journal of Law in 
Context, Cambridge University Press, 9(4), p. 488. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552313000268 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

94 | 

 

 

 
 

Denpasar through interviews. While the use of normative research with the study of legislation, 

literature and scientific journals and relevant official publications to answer the first and third 

problems. The results of this study are presented in a descriptive analytical scientific paper. 

 
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 

 

A. Provisions for Execution of Judicial Decisions in Administrative Court after the 

Enactment of Administrative Court Law 

1. The Procedure for Execution of the Administrative Court Decision based on 

the Administrative Court Law 

In connection with the execution of the decision at the Administrative Court, 

it can be specifically explained that, in disputes that are examined, decided and 

tried by the Administrative Court, there are sometimes conditions where the related 

agency/official as the party being punished is reluctant to carry out the contents of 

the decision voluntarily. If the contents of the decision are not carried out voluntarily, 

then an execution must be carried out. In civil procedural law, the legal basis for the 

implementation of the decision (execution) is regulated in HIR or Rbg, namely Article 

195 to Article 224 HIR or Article 206 to Article 258 Rbg; Article 1033 Rv, Law No. 48 

Year 2009 concerning Judicial Power as well as various laws and regulations whose 

substance is more specific in nature, such as the Civil Code (concerning mortgages) 

and the Mortgage Rights Act (concerning the execution of mortgage rights). 

Both HIR and Rbg contain detailed provisions relating to the implementation 

of the decision (execution), from the beginning of the execution process until 

the end, that is, until the contents of the court’s decision are fulfilled. In Articles 

195 to Article 224 of the HIR or Article 206 to Article 258 of the RBg, provisions 

concerning warning/reprimand have been regulated; confiscation of execution; 

fulfillment of achievement: emptying the disputed object, submitting the disputed 

object, auction, payment; and hostage-taking (gijzeling). 

The legal basis for the implementation of court decisions (executions) in the 

state administrative court procedural law is regulated in Article 115 through Article 

121 of the State Administrative Court Law. Provisions for the execution of decisions 

in the state administrative court procedural law are very few, even summary when 

compared with the provisions of the implementation of court rulings in civil procedural 

law. The law does not contain provisions regarding who ordered the execution, who 

led the execution and how to realize the contents of the decision which was inkracht 

van gewisjde.18 Regarding the obligations mandated by the law to the Chairperson 

 
 

18Soleh, Mohammad Afifudin. (2018). Eksekusi terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara yang 
Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap. Mimbar Keadilan, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya, 11(1), pp. 23 – 24. doi: 
https://doi.org/10.30996/mk.v0i0.1604 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 95 

 

 

 
 

of the State Administrative Court, is the obligation to oversee the execution of the 

execution as regulated in Article 119 of the Administrative Court Law. 

That “coercion from public officials” to realize the contents of the decision 

there is no provision governing it, or it can be said there is a legal vacuum. It is also 

unclear who should order the “coercion”, and who is leading the “coercion”. Article 116 

Paragraph (3) of the Administrative Court Law regulates the word “ordered”, but in the 

context of the plaintiff’s request, which is stated when the defendant is determined to 

carry out the obligations as has been affirmed in the provisions of Article 97 Paragraph 

(9) letter b and letter c, also after 90 (ninety) working days the obligation is not carried 

out, the plaintiff submits an application to the head of the court in the form of an order 

from the court to the defendant to implement the court’s decision. 

The decision of a state administrative court that requires implementation 

is a condemnatory decision because it imposes an obligation to be carried out 

for the defeated State Administration Agency or Officer. Article 97 Paragraph (8) 

of the Administrative Court Act essentially states if the lawsuit is granted, while 

in the ruling it can determine the existence of obligations that must be carried 

out by the State Administration Agency or Officer who issued the Decision. This 

provision is the starting point for the issuance of obligations that must be done 

by the defendant. Article 97 Paragraph (9) of the State Administrative Court Law 

determines the obligations imposed on the defendant, namely the revocation of 

the relevant Decision; or revocation of the relevant Decision and issuing a new 

Decision; or issuance of Decisions in the case of a lawsuit based on Article 3. 

The three types of liabilities are basically two liabilities, namely revocation 

of decree and issuance of new decree. Both of them constitute the substance of the 

basic decision which is condemnatoir. An additional condemnatory decision is the 

obligation to pay compensation as Article 97 Paragraph (10) of the Administrative 

Court Law and the obligation regarding rehabilitation as Article 97 Paragraph (11) 

of the Administrative Court Law. Based on Article 97 there are 5 (five) items in the 

content of the decision which is condemnatoir, namely three obligations which include 

the principal and two obligations which include additional proposals. If the obligation 

in the decision is not carried out by the defendant on a voluntary basis, it is possible to 

carry out an execution because the condemnatory decision has an executive power. 

 
a. Revocation of Administrative Decision 

 

After the decision of the state administration court whose sentence 

is conditional is handed down, the defendant namely the state administration 

body or official is obliged to carry out the contents of the decision. In its 

implementation, the defendant may be reluctant to implement the contents of 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

96 | 

 

 

 
 

the decision voluntarily, so the implementation of the contents of the decision 

should be carried out by force through execution. 

Related to the execution of the obligation to revoke a state 

administration decision, contained in Article 97 Paragraph (9) letter (a) of the 

Administrative Court Law. The procedure for carrying out the execution of 

the decision containing the obligation to revoke this decision is regulated in 

Article 116 Paragraph (2) of the Administrative Court Law, and after 60 (sixty) 

working days of the court’s decision the inkracht van gewisjde is received 

but by the defendant not carried out then the disputed decision has no legal 

force anymore. Therefore, no other efforts are needed from the court, because 

the state administrative decision automatically loses its legal force which is 

commonly referred to as automatic execution.19 Although not revoked, but the 

decision has no legal force anymore. 

Regarding the revocation of the decision based on a court decision 

which is inkracht van gewisjde, for example, in the case of a plaintiff who 

faces a decision that is burdensome, for example related to the dismissal of an 

employee or an order to demolish a building. If the plaintiff’s lawsuit is granted 

by the court and the defendant is sentenced to revoke the said decision, the 

plaintiff will have obtained his rights only after the stipulated deadline, which 

is four months after the judicial decision which has permanent legal force is 

submitted to the defendant. 

 
b. Issuance of New Administrative Decision 

 

The obligation to issue a new decree is regulated in two different 

articles, namely Article 97 Paragraph (9) letter b and Article 97 Paragraph 

(9) letter c of the Administrative Court Law. There is a difference between 

the two articles, Article 97 Paragraph (9) letter b contains two obligations, 

namely revoking the plaintiff’s decision and issuing a new decision, and Article 

97 Paragraph (9) letter c contains the obligation of the defendant to issue a 

decision if the lawsuit is based on Article 3 paragraphs (1) through (3) of the 

Administrative Court Law, which essentially states that if the defendant does 

not issue a decision, whereas it is the defendant’s obligation, then it is equated 

with the State Administrative Decree, both in terms of not issuance of the 

decision is requested over the time period or not specified time period but after 

four months from receipt of the request, the defendant is considered to have 

refused to issue the decision in question. 

 
19Sunge, Maisara. (2009). Efektivitas Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Inovasi, Ikatan 

Mahasiswa Pascasarjana dan Alumni Gorontalo di Bandung, 6(4), p. 81. 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 97 

 

 

 
 

Article 97 Paragraph (9) letter c of the Administrative Court Law 

regulates the issuance of negative fictitious state administrative decisions. In 

a case like this the defendant actually did nothing, but by law this situation is 

the same as the defendant issued a state administration decision containing 

the rejection. The reason is that the defendant as the public service provider 

is obliged to serve every community request that is his obligation, if neglected, 

even though he has not done anything, the law considers that the defendant 

has issued a decision to reject the request or a negative fiction.20 

An applicant who feels aggrieved can file a lawsuit over the state of 

silence of the state administration or administrative officer, because the attitude 

of silence is equated with the decision to reject the petition. If the petition 

is filed according to procedure, the court can punish the defendant to issue 

the intended decision or petition, but with the Government Administration Act 

there is a drastic change because the Government Administration Act adopts 

a new principle that is the positive fictive principle as opposed to the fictitious 

principle negative. 

The execution of the decision on the inkracht van gewisjde which contains 

the obligation to issue state administrative decisions refers to the provisions of 

Article 97 paragraphs (9) letters b and c and Article 116 paragraphs (3) through 

Paragraph (6) of the Administrative Court Law. The provisions basically stipulate 

that in the event that the defendant is determined to have to carry out obligations 

regarding the revocation of the plaintiff’s decision and issue a new decision, and 

then after 90 (ninety) working days the obligation is not carried out, the plaintiff 

has the right to submit an application to the Chair, the court has requested 

that the court order the defendant to carry out the decision, which is then by 

the Chair of the Court with a warrant ordering the defendant to implement the 

decision. If the defendant does not obey the Chief Justice’s order regarding 

the implementation of the decision on the defendant party, that is, the body or 

official concerned will be subject to payment of an amount of forced money and/ 

or administrative sanctions. In the event that the defendant is reluctant to also 

carry out, the defendant is announced through the local print media by the court 

clerk, and the head of the court is required to submit to the President to order the 

official to implement the decision and the representative body of the people in 

order to carry out the supervisory function. Although in this provision, there are 

provisions on the amount of forced money, types of administrative sanctions, 

and the procedures for its implementation in Article 116 Paragraph (7) of the 

 
20Rodding, Budiamin. (2017). Keputusan Fiktif Negatif dan Fiktif Positif dalam Peningkatan Kualitas Pelayanan 

Publik. Tanjungpura Law Journal, Universitas Tanjungpura, 1(1), p. 30. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/tlj.v1i1.18328 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/tlj.v1i1.18328


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

98 | 

 

 

 
 

Administrative Court Law mandated to be regulated by law, but until now the 

mandate of the article has not been implemented. 

Observing the provisions of the execution of court decisions as 

referred to in Article 116 Paragraph (3) to Paragraph (6) of the Administrative 

Court Law, basically the execution in the Administrative Court emphasizes self 

respect21 and legal awareness of the defendant’s party regarding the contents 

of the decision to carried out voluntarily without any coercive efforts (dwang 

middelen) that can be felt and imposed by the court against the defendant.22 

When compared with the implementation of civil court executions 

whose decisions are condemnatoir (ordered, punish), then the difference is 

clearly seen. There are a number of differences in the execution of executions 

in civil and state administrative courts. The first difference is in the role of 

the Chair of the Court and the executing agency, and the second difference 

in the existence of sanctions. However, the execution process in the State 

Administrative Court Law contains shortcomings, as the implication of legal 

normativisation in the Act does not yet stipulate sanctions for non-compliance 

of the defendant who does not implement the administrative decision.23 Another 

difference is that in the state administrative procedure law, there is no real 

execution as a civil court, but administrative execution, so that the defendant 

must implement the contents of the decision itself.24 

Regarding the role of the Chairperson of the District Court in the 

execution process, he played the role of “ordering” and “leading” the execution. 

In this function, the Chairperson of the District Court is in the execution process 

since there is an application for execution. The Chair of the District Court in 

ordering and leading the execution is based on the provisions in the HIR/RBg 

and is assisted by institutions such as clerks and clerks. 

In the state administration procedural law, the Chairperson of the Court 

may order the execution in response to the claimant’s request based on Article 

116 Paragraph (3) of the State Administrative Court Law. Based on this article 

the plaintiff won can request the court chairman to order the defendant to carry 

out the decision. According to Himawan Krisbiyantoro, a judge at the Denpasar 

 
21Untoro, Untoro. (2018). Self-Respect dan Kesadaran Hukum Pejabat Tata Usaha Negara Menuju Keadilan. 

Pandecta: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum (Research Law Journal), Universitas Negeri Semarang, 13(1), pp. 41 – 42. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.15294/pandecta.v13i1.7856 

22Gusman, Delfina. (2010). Efektifitas Pelaksanaan Upaya Paksa Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara 
yang telah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro, 39(3), pp. 223 & 228. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.39.3.2010.221-230 

23Harahap, Zairin. (2009). Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 
pp. 153 – 154. 

24Yulius, Yulius. (2018). Diskursus Lembaga Eksekusi Negara dalam Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia. Jurnal 
Hukum Peratun, Mahkamah Agung RI, 1(1), p. 15. 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 99 

 

 

 
 

Administrative Court, that the position of Chairperson of the Administrative Court 

is as a supervisor of executions and is passive, there needs to be initiative from 

the plaintiff to submit an application if the defendant does not want to implement 

the contents of the decision. The plaintiff’s initiative is needed because the court 

does not know whether the contents of the decision have been carried out or 

not. And according to Gayuh Rahantyo, a judge at the Denpasar Administrative 

Court, if not based on the request of the plaintiff, the Chairperson of the State 

Administrative Court will issue a decision addressed to the defendant’s superior 

so that the contents of the decision are carried out by the defendant. 

Because the implementation of the State Administrative Court Decision 

which is inkracht van gewisjde cannot be carried out by any institution other 

than the defendant, and the position of the Chairperson of the Court is only to 

oversee the implementation of the decision which has been inkracht and the 

absence of an executing support institution such as a bailiff in civil court, the 

execution is only based on self respect or personal awareness of the defendant. 

Although forced efforts can be made in the form of payment of a sum of forced 

money and/or administrative sanctions, but as has been described many 

problems are associated with the implementation of the forced effort. The main 

problem is the unclear regulation regarding the nominal forced money, the types 

of administrative sanctions, and how the process of forced and paying payments 

and/or administrative sanctions are in fact mandated in the provisions of Article 

116 Paragraph (7) of the State Administrative Court Law. 

 
2. State Administrative Court Execution Provisions According to Government 

Administrative Law 

Provisions for the execution of   decisions   on   State   Administrative 

Court are regulated in the Administrative Court Law. In its development with a 

background to improve governance, also provide legal protection for citizens and 

government officials themselves, and to realize good governance, the Government 

Administration Law was enacted.25 

The Government Administration Act is the legal basis for the administration 

of government in enhancing good governance and creating a better, transparent and 

efficient bureaucracy. In addition, the regulation of the Government Administration 

Law as a material legal basis for testing the decisions or actions of government 

officials based on legislation and general principles of good governance, and 

shifting the old paradigm to the new paradigm is the paradigm of public service in 

 
25Mawardi, Irvan. (2016). Paradigma Baru PTUN: Respon Peradilan Administrasi terhadap Demokratisasi. 

Yogyakarta: Thafa Media, p. 75. 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

100 | 

 

 

 
 

the administration of government that continues to develop along with openness 

broader access to public information, and emphasizes the responsibilities of 

governments oriented to public services. 

For this reason, the existence of the Government Administration Law is 

placed as one of the pillars of bureaucratic reform and good governance, through 

arrangements for the implementation of government administration by government 

agencies and/or officials who are always guided by the general principles of good 

governance and provisions statutory regulations, as an embodiment of the principle 

of legality in the implementation of government administration. 

The academic paper on the Government Administration Act outlines the 

urgency of the Government Administration Act both philosophically, sociologically 

and juridical, which is clearly illustrated in the consideration of the Government 

Administration Act which mentions several foundations for the formation of the 

Government Administration Act including to encourage improvement in the quality 

of government administration, government bodies and/or officials carry out their 

authority must be guided by general principles of good governance and the applicable 

laws in the framework of guaranteeing legal protection, and based on considerations 

to manifest good governance and based on decisions and/or actions of government 

officials in relation to guarantees fulfilment of community legal protection. 

Various basic justifications for the birth of the Administrative Court Law do 

not necessarily make the birth of the Administrative Court Law accepted directly 

by the public and related parties, both in a position to support the promulgation of 

the Government Administrative Law because it is seen as a progressive step in 

reforming government administration However, there is a view that the promulgation 

of the Government Administration Law also causes confusion and overlapping 

regulations, especially related to procedural law which must be applied and used as 

a guideline for judges in examining State Administration disputes in Administrative 

Courts. 

The presence of the Government Administration Law has brought a 

paradigm shift fundamentally with regard to the absolute competence of the 

Administrative Court, because the absolute competence of the Administrative 

Court which was originally limited, has been expanded. As for some changes that 

provide an expansion of competence in the case submission procedure in the 

Administrative Court. As for some forms of expansion of competencies regulated in 

the Government Administration Law including26 in terms of expanding the meaning 

 
26Wairocana, I Gusti Ngurah, Sudiarta, I Ketut, Layang, I Wayan Bela Siki, Sudiarawan, Kadek Agus, 

& Pramana, I Gede Pasek. (2019). The Expansion of Administrative Decision Meaning Based on Government 
Administration Law: A Dispute Submission Process Approach. Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master 
Law Journal), Universitas Udayana, 8(1), pp. 20 – 26. doi: https://doi.org/10.24843/JMHU.2019.v08.i01.p02 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 101 

 

 

 
 

of the Administrative Decision; Competence of the Administrative Court for review 

whether or not there is an element of abuse of authority at the stage of issuance 

of the Administrative Decision; also to decide on the object of a positive fictitious 

dispute; then level one in the case of prosecuting after administrative effort; and to 

try or grant a claim for compensation, without limitation of a certain amount. 

These various expansion of competencies that were arranged after 

the birth of the Government Administration Act later created new problems and 

became a sensitive and very interesting issue for in-depth study. This arrangement 

of competency expansion is because it is thought to leave various theoretical 

problems that cause confusion in the technical implementation. 

In addition to regulating various extensions of state administrative court 

competencies, specifically the Government Administration Act apparently also 

regulates certain matters whose substance is also regulated in the Administrative 

Court Law. Among them regarding the execution of the Administrative Court 

Judgment. The execution was related to problems in the administration of 

government. Where the problems in the administration of   the   government 

arise because the community members, individuals or civil legal entities,27 feel 

disadvantaged by the Administrative Decision which is in the provisions of the 

Government Administration Law or referred to as the State Administration Decree 

or the Government Administration Law. In this case, there is an expansion of the 

object of state administration dispute, because based on Article 1 number (9) and 

Article 53 Paragraph (1) of the Administrative Court Law, the object of the state 

administrative dispute is the Administrative Decision which must meet the criteria 

or elements of written form; issued by state administrative bodies or officials; 

contains legal actions in state administration; based on the applicable laws and 

regulations; concrete, individual and final; cause legal consequences for a person 

or legal entity. 

As for the regulation of the Government Administration Law, the meaning 

of state administrative decisions in the form of formal actions in the form of 

written, or in the form of factual actions, although not written. The expansion of the 

object of the dispute is not only related to factual actions, in Article 87 the Law on 

Government Administration states that the meaning of a Administrative Decision 

must be interpreted inter alia as a written determination which also includes factual 

actions; also the decisions of bodies/institutions in the executive, legislative, 

judiciary and other state administration circles; based on statutory provisions and 

general principles of good governance; is final in a broader sense or meaning; 

 

27Astomo, Putera. (2014). Eksistensi Peradilan Administrasi dalam Sistem Negara Hukum Indonesia. Masalah- 
Masalah Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro, 43(3), p. 370. doi: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.43.3.2014.363-371 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

102 | 

 

 

 
 

decisions that have the potential to lead to legal consequences/implications; and/ 

or decisions that apply to all members of the community.28 

With the stipulation of the definition of state administrative decisions 

in Article 87 of the Government Administration Law which is included in the 

transitional provisions violates the rules in the formation of legislation as Appendix 

II number 135 of Law No. 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Legislation and 

Article 1 number 9 or Article 87 of the Administrative Court Law also contradicts 

Article 24A Paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 

because Article 87 of the Government Administrative Law has veiled changes to 

the provisions of Article 1 number 9 of the Administrative Court Law.29 

In this case, there is also a shift in understanding from the object of State 

Administration disputes namely the Government Administration Decree and 

Government Administration Acts based on the Government Administration Act are 

also different from the meaning set out in the State Administrative Court Law. 

In Article 1 number 7 of the Government Administration Law, the Government 

Administration Decree is a written decree issued by a Government Agency and/ 

or Officer in the administration of government. That the individual elements of the 

definition in the State Administrative Court Law are eliminated and the implication 

is that the change of the plaintiff in a state administrative dispute, so that the 

plaintiff in a state administrative dispute is not only an individual/individual who is 

harmed but is a community member who is harmed by an Administrative Decree 

Government and/or Government Administration Acts. Especially when related to 

the provisions of Article 87 letter e of the Government Administration Act, those who 

can be located as plaintiffs as parties in a state administration dispute are not only 

individuals who are addressed by a decision and are not limited to disadvantaged 

members of the community but extend to those citizens who have the potential to 

experiencing legal consequences due to the issuance of a decision. 

The expansion of the meaning of the Administrative Decision regulated in the 

provisions of Article 87 of the Transition of the Law on Government Administration 

later gave rise to a new perspective on the State Administrative Procedure Code 

and caused some confusion in its implementation.30 The expansion of the meaning 

of the Administrative Decision in the Government Administration Act, according 

 
28Jiwantara, Firzhal Arzhi, Adolf, Huala, Wibowo, Gatot Dwi Hendro, & Cahyowati, R. R. (2018). The Extension 

of Absolute Competence of State Administrative Court after the Enactment of Act Number 30 of 2014 on Government 
Administration in Indonesia. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, Allied Business Academies, 21(1), 
pp. 3 – 4. 

29Wahyunadi, Yodi Martono. (2016). Kompetensi Absolut Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Konteks 
Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 
Mahkamah Agung RI, 5(1), p. 140. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.5.1.2016.135-154 

30Yulianto, Eko. (2017). Hukum Acara dan Praktek Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. In Pendidikan Khusus Profesi 
Advokat. Yogyakarta: Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI) in collaboration with Gadjah Mada University. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.5.1.2016.135-154


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 103 

 

 

 
 

to Mariana Ivan Junias, Judge at the Denpasar State Administrative Court, is 

aimed at the context of opening the widest possible access to justice in exercising 

control over administrative decisions issued by government agencies/institutions 

or government officials. The expansion of the object of the dispute has not been 

accommodated through changes to the law in the field of state administrative 

justice or in the form of government regulations, because the expansion must be 

further explained in order to be able to adjust to the administration of government.31 

In addition to regulating the aforementioned matters, the Government 

Administration Act also regulates in summary terms the execution of a state 

administration court decision which is not carried out voluntarily by the defendant. 

Institutions related to execution as explained earlier are also regulated in the 

Administrative Court Law in the form of forced money (dwangsom) and administrative 

sanctions, as well as the provisions regarding announcements in print media and 

submissions to the president so that he wants to carry out the contents of the 

decision. Provisions regarding executions in the Government Administration Act 

are regulated in Chapter XII regarding administrative sanctions. Article related to 

the imposition of administrative sanctions related to the non-implementation of 

the contents of the said state administrative court decision is Article 53 Paragraph 

(6) of the Government Administrative Law governing Government Agencies and/ 

or Officers must determine the Decree in the context of implementing the Court’s 

decision no later than 5 (five) working days since the decision. This provision is 

related to the positive fictive principle adhered to by the Government Administration 

Law which is indeed regulated in Article 53 of the Government Administration Act. 

It is an obligation for the Agency and/or Government Official to determine 

and/or make a Decision and/or Action on the existence of a request from the 

public. Such decision and/or action must be taken within the period stipulated in 

the legislation or if the time period is not regulated, referring to the provisions of 

Article 53 Paragraph (2) of the Government Administration Law, no later than ten 

working days after the application is received in full. If there is no response beyond 

this time period, then based on a positive fictive principle, the request is considered 

granted. As a legal basis for requesting the defendant to establish/make a decision 

or action as requested, the community members have the right to appeal to the 

court to obtain a decision to accept the request. Upon this application, the court 

must decide within a maximum period of twenty one working days after the date of 

the application to the court. If the court decides that the request is accepted then 

based on Article 53 Paragraph (6) of the Government Administration Act, within a 

31Putrijanti, Aju. (2015). Kewenangan serta Obyek Sengketa di Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Setelah Ada UU 
No. 30/2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro, 44(4), p. 430. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.44.4.2015.425-430 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

104 | 

 

 

 
 

maximum of five working days after the decision is decided, the government must 

determine the decision to implement the court’s decision. 

In the Government Administration Act for defendants who do not comply 

with the contents of court decisions in accordance with Article 53 Paragraph (6) 

are threatened with administrative sanctions. These   administrative   sanctions 

are regulated in Article 80 Paragraph (2) of the Government Administration Act, 

where the threat of violation of Article 53 Paragraph (6) is moderate administrative 

sanctions. What is meant by moderate administrative sanctions as stipulated in 

Article 81 Paragraph (2) of the Government Administration Act namely forced 

payment or compensation; temporary dismissal with or without obtaining office 

rights. These sanctions are sanctions that are basically imposed on state 

administrative officials or their positions, and are not directly related to government 

administrative decisions, so that there will be no change without the willingness of 

the body or institution authorized to issue the decision. 

 
3. Constraints in Execution of Judicial Decisions in State Administration after 

the Entry into force of the Law on Government Administration 

After the Government Administrative Law came into force, the execution of 

the judicial decision on the state administration must have experienced obstacles. The 

obstacle faced is precisely because of the contradictions between the regulation of the 

Government Administration Act and the State Administrative Court Law. Constraints 

faced are mainly related to legal certainty for the enactment of the positive fictive 

principle adhered to by the Government Administration Act which is the opposite of the 

negative fictive principle adhered to by the State Administrative Court Law. 

The negative fictitious principle is regulated in the provision of Article 3 of 

the State Administrative Court Law, which basically stipulates that if the defendant 

party, namely an agency/institution/government official, has the obligation to issue 

a decision and they will not issue the decision requested within the stipulated time 

period on related legislation or if not regulated, based on Article 3 Paragraph (3) 

the law is limited to only 4 (four) months, then the silence of the Agency/Institution/ 

Officer is the same as a State Administration Decree. The State Administration 

Decree is defined as a decision on the rejection of the application submitted. 

Basically, the negative fictive principle is based on the silent attitude of the 

official/agency/institution upon a request to issue a decision, but the official/agency/ 

institution does not issue the said decision. The official silence is then assumed 

that the official/agency/institution has issued a decision but in fact never existed so 

it is called a fictitious decision. That the official silence means that the request is 

rejected, so that it is negative, so that the negative fictive principle is born. 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 105 

 

 

 
 

The negative fictive principle is the opposite of the positive fictive principle 

adhered to by the Government Administration Act. This positive fictive principle in 

Article 53 paragraphs (1) through (6) of the Government Administration Act with 

provisions governing the time limit for obligations in the context of establishing/ 

making Decisions or Actions in accordance with the law, and in legislation does 

not determine the time limit for such obligations, the said Government Agency/ 

Institution/Official is obliged to stipulate/execute Decisions and/or Actions within 

a limit of up to ten working days after the application has been received in full by 

the agency/Institution/official. If beyond this time, the Agency and/or Government 

Official does not determine/make a Decision or Action, the request is deemed 

legally granted, and then the petitioner submits the application through the Court 

in order to obtain a decision regarding receipt of the request. The Court is required 

to decide on the application no later than twenty-one working days since the 

application was submitted, and it is stated that government agencies/institutions/ 

officials must determine the decision to implement the court’s decision no later 

than five working days after the court’s decision is determined. 

Basically like a negative fictive principle, this positive fictive principle is 

also based on the attitude of silence from officials/institutions/state administrative 

bodies. The difference lies in the end result, where the positive fictive principle of 

silence actually means that the official accepts or grants the request in question. 

That the positive term in the positive fictive principle is defined as acceptance or 

granting of a request. 

The positive fictive principle then creates obstacles, how is its position with 

the negative fictive principle adhered to in the State Administrative Court Law. As 

a solution, the legal preference used, namely the lex posterior derogate legi priori 

principle, applies to two equal rules and regulates the same problem to determine that 

the latest/newer rules outperform the older rules. In the process of drafting legislation 

(legislative drafting), generally when there is a new rule that is set and there are 

certain things in the previous regulations that are still valid or declared invalid will 

be regulated in the transitional rules of the new law. However, in the Government 

Administration Law there are no rules that state explicitly that the Article 3 of the State 

Administrative Court Law is not related to a negative fictive Administrative Decision. 

The existence of two opposing principles, both the negative fictive 

principle and the positive fictive principle, of course also impact on the difference 

in the execution of the execution. If a lawsuit based on a negative fictive principle 

is granted, the court determines a decision containing the State Administration 

Agency or Officer required to issue a State Administration Decree as requested 

by the plaintiff (deemed rejected on the basis of a negative fictive principle) as 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

106 | 

 

 

 
 

stipulated in Article 97 Paragraph (9) letter C of the Law State Administrative Court 

Law. If the State Administrative Agency or Officials as referred to in Article 116 

Paragraph (3) of the State Administrative Court Law in 90 days are reluctant to 

obey the decision, the plaintiff pleads with the Chair of the State Administrative 

Court so that the defendant is ordered to carry out the contents of the decision. 

This actually does not seem to have any urgency because the Chairperson of the 

TUN Court is required to oversee the implementation of the TUN court’s decision 

which has been inkracht. After the request is submitted, if the body/institution/ 

official still refuses to implement the contents of the new decision then he may 

be subject to payment of a sum of forced money and/or administrative sanctions. 

Unlike the case with executions related to positive fictive principles. If 

the time limit provided under Article 53 Paragraph (1) and (2) of the Government 

Administration Act to issue a state administration decision and/or certain actions has 

passed, the applicant submits an application and not a lawsuit to the Administrative 

Court. The application is to obtain a decision on receipt of the request (not to obtain 

the determination as is usual in the Administrative Court application). Five days after 

the decision of the State Administrative Court, the Administrative Agency or Officer 

is determined to determine the decision to implement the decision. Only then will 

Article 53 Paragraph (6) of the Government Administration Act not be implemented, in 

this case the agency/institution/official may be subjected to moderate administrative 

sanctions, in the form of forced payment of money or compensation or temporary 

dismissal with/without obtaining office rights. 

Another obstacle in the execution of the judicial decision on state 

administration after the enactment of the Government Administration Act is the 

absence of formal rules or procedural law governing the implementation of positive 

fictive principles. This has long been a concern of the judiciary, especially the 

Judges at the State Administrative Court, apparently there has been no follow-up 

from the legislative body to draw up formal regulations related to this matter. 

The Supreme Court then took the initiative to resolve this problem 

by issuing a Supreme Court Regulation No. 5 of 2015 concerning Guidelines 

for Procedures for Obtaining a Decision on Acceptance of Requests to Obtain 

Decisions and/or Actions of Government Agencies or Officers (Perma No. 5/2015), 

issued as the embodiment of the authority of the State Administrative Court as 

regulated in Article 53 of the Government Administration Law, regarding the 

authority of the Court to examine and decide upon the receipt of an application 

to obtain a Decision and/or Actions of Government Agencies/Institutions/Officers. 

That Article 53 is the basis of implementing positive fictive principles in the State 

Administrative Court. Because it was considered not to provide clear guidance for 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 107 

 

 

 
 

judges in adjudicating cases related to the application of positive fictive principles, 

the Perma No. 5 of 2015 was then replaced by Supreme Court Regulation No. 8 

of 2017 concerning Guidelines for Procedures to Obtain Decisions on Acceptance 

of Requests to Obtain Decisions and/or Actions Government Agency or Officials 

(Regulation No. 8 of 2017). 

Regarding the implementation of positive fictive principles, government 

bodies and/or officials who are reluctant or disobey the contents of decisions related 

to the implementation of the principle are threatened with moderate administrative 

sanctions. These sanctions are imposed on state administrative officials or 

their positions, not directly related to the administrative decisions themselves. 

So another obstacle is that there will be no change without the willingness of 

government agencies/institutions/officials to issue the decision. In addition, the 

imposition of sanctions is also unclear the legal basis that becomes the reference 

and there are no implementing regulations. So after the Government Administration 

Act regarding the execution of the judicial ruling the state administration still faces 

many obstacles in its implementation so it does not reflect legal certainty. 

 
4. Legal Certainty for the Community in Provisions for Execution of Judicial 

Decisions in State Administration After the Entry into force of the 

Government Administration Act 

In carrying out the execution process, of course the ultimate goal is for a 

court decision to be carried out. The implementation of the decision must of course 

have a legal basis regulating who is authorized to order and lead the execution, 

who carries out the execution, and how the execution procedure is carried out. 

The rule of law regarding executions in judicial bodies is very crucial. 

Execution is a step that justitiabelen is expected to provide justice for a case that 

it faces. If we talk about law enforcement, the execution process is the last step 

especially if the judicial decision is not heeded. Not implementing a court decision 

can occur in a State Administration case. However, the decision of the State 

Administrative Court is very dependent on legal awareness or the willingness of 

the officials concerned to implement the contents of the decision32 or often referred 

to as execution based on self respect. 

The importance of execution in implementing decisions is related to 

one of law enforcement functions, namely legal certainty, as well as justice and 

expediency. Legal certainty is a guarantee for those entitled according to law to be 

able to obtain their rights and that a decision can be implemented, because it is a 

 
32Rafiqi, Rafiqi. (2017). Kompetensi Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Menyelesaikan Kasus Tanah 

tentang Hak Pengelolaan. JPPUMA: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan dan Sosial Politik UMA (Journal of Governance 
and Political Social UMA), Universitas Medan Area, 5(2), p. 112. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31289/jppuma.v5i2.1207 

http://dx.doi.org/10.31289/jppuma.v5i2.1207


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

108 | 

 

 

 
 

form of protection for the judiciary against arbitrary actions.33 The implementation of 

decisions is also related to the independence of the court, where the state must be 

able to force the government/executive to obey the contents of the court’s decision 

and that the court must be given the authority to ensure the implementation of the 

contents of the court’s decision.34 

In a state administrative court decision based on the State Administrative 

Court Law, if the lawsuit is granted, then in the ruling the ruling shall stipulate 

an obligation that must be carried out by a com- munity/Institution/Administrative 

Officer as contemplated in Article 97 Paragraph (8) to (11)) State Administrative 

Court Law that revokes State Administrative Decree and issuance of State 

Administrative Decree, that these obligations may be accompanied by the 

imposition of compensation or rehabilitation. 

Regarding the obligation of the defendant to revoke the state administration 

decision sued under Article 97 Paragraph (9) letter a of the State Administrative 

Court Law, the state administrative court law has clearly determined the execution 

or implementation of the court’s decision. With the passage of four months after 

the decision of the court with legal force still sent to the defendant, so automatically 

the state administrative decision sued is not inkracht van gewisjde (automatic 

execution). In such circumstances, legal certainty for the community has been 

reflected, because clearly the interests of the people are guaranteed fulfilment 

through this automatic execution. 

Regarding the obligation of the defendant to issue a state administration 

decision based on Article 97 Paragraph (9) letters b and c of the State Administrative 

Court Law, it can only be done by the defendant himself. If there is no awareness 

and good intention from the agency/institution/official to implement the contents 

of the decision, so that the decision is carried out by the defendant, the Chief 

Justice of the Court may order the defendant to implement the decision with 

permanent legal force, at the request of the plaintiff as Article 116 Paragraph (3) 

of the Law State Administrative Court Law. The Chairman of the Court’s order if 

related to Article 116 Paragraph (4) of the State Administrative Court Law35 even 

more illustrates that the execution of execution can only be carried out by the 

 
 

33Wijayanta, Tata. (2014). Asas Kepastian Hukum, Keadilan dan Kemanfaatan dalam Kaitannya dengan 
Putusan Kepailitan Pengadilan Niaga. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, 14(2), pp. 219 – 
220. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2014.14.2.291 

34Harjiyatni, Francisca Romana, & Suswoto, Suswoto. (2017). Implikasi Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 
2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan terhadap Fungsi Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia 
Iustum, Universitas Islam Indonesia Yogyakarta, 24(4), p. 608. doi: https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol24.iss4. 
art5 

35Simanjuntak, Enrico. (2014). Prospek Ombudsman Republik Indonesia dalam Rangka Memperkuat 
Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 
3(2), pp. 168 – 169. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.3.2.2014.163-176 

http://dx.doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2014.14.2.291
http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.3.2.2014.163-176


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 109 

 

 

 
 

Administrative Agency/Official itself as a defendant or execution based on self 

respect. Where if the defendant is unwilling to carry out the verdict of the inkracht 

van gewisjde court, the relevant official/agency/institution is subject to payment of 

a forced amount of money or administrative sanctions. So that whether or not the 

court’s decision on the inkracht is carried out is entirely left to the awareness and 

good intentions of the defendant himself (self respect). 

The law both the Administrative Court Law and the Government 

Administration Law also do not regulate who carried out the execution. In the civil 

procedural law it is very clearly determined which organs or institutions are obliged 

to carry out executions under the orders and leadership of the Chair of the District 

Court. Not so in state administrative court procedural law. Neither the Administrative 

Court Law nor the Government Administration Act does not regulate and determine 

which organs or institutions will carry out the executions. Whereas regarding the 

execution of the decision (execution), the procedural law clearly provides provisions 

regarding the procedure for legal instruments in the framework of execution, 

such as: confiscation institutions, auctions, emptying and surrender. In the state 

administrative court procedural law, there is no such regulation, because in a state 

administration dispute there is no real execution, only administrative execution. 

For additional obligations, namely the obligation of the defendant to pay 

compensation and carry out rehabilitation, theoretically, the execution can take place. 

Nevertheless, it is still unclear who led the execution. Implementation also depends 

very much on government organs. The element of coercion as a characteristic of 

execution is not apparent, so potentially there is a possibility of being unworkable. 

This shows the existence of legal obscurity (blurred norms) regarding because it 

gives room for uncertainty. This legal obscurity is also motivated by the absence of 

legal vacuum mentioned above. On the other hand the amount of compensation and 

compensation that the claimant can get is relatively small. As Article 3 Paragraph 

(1) of Government Regulation No. 43 of 1991, the amount of compensation can be 

obtained by the plaintiff, which is a minimum of two hundred and fifty thousand rupiahs 

and a maximum of five million rupiahs. The amount is certainly not proportional to 

the amount of compensation in civil cases that are not normatively limited. 

That the Decree of the State Administrative Court is binding on the 

parties to the dispute (inter partes) as well as binding on everyone (erga omnes). 

According to Bagir Manan, erga omnes decisions have the advantage of having 

legal certainty over state administrative decisions sued in the State Administrative 

Court, while the other side is viewed negatively, making the State Administrative 

Court Judge, besides performing the judicial function by establishing the law, but 

also has widened to carry out the function of legislation by forming laws. 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

110 | 

 

 

 
 

The legal certainty of the Decree of the State Administrative Court, which is 

erga omnes, is not followed by certainty over its implementation. Provisions regarding 

the execution regulated in Article 116 Paragraph (4) of the Law on State Administrative 

Court, although it has stipulated the forced money or administrative sanctions, is 

only summarized. The unclear regulation regarding forced efforts and forced money 

reflects the lack of legal certainty regarding the execution of the state administrative 

court decision. Indicators of the absence of legal certainty include,36 first, the unclear 

application of forced money (dwangsom), which still requires implementing regulations 

related to procedures and mechanisms for the payment of forced money; the unclear 

time or when can be determined the amount of forced money that must be paid; 

and it is unclear whether the imposition of forced money, whether charged to the 

agency/institution/administrative officer or the personal government official. Second, 

the unclear implementation of administrative sanctions that is not yet clear what 

types of sanctions can be applied; it is not clear about the basic regulations regarding 

administrative sanctions that can be used as a reference; and the mechanism and 

procedures for implementing administrative sanctions are not yet clear. 

After the entry into force of the Government Administration Law, specifically 

Article 54, is related to the implementation of a positive fictive principle, because 

the silence of the Agency/Institution/State Administration Officer is considered 

approval, if the request for acceptance of the ruling by the applicant is granted, 

the Administrative Court then determines the decision to accept the request. 

Obligations that must be carried out by the related Agency/Institution/Official are 

then to determine the decision to implement the decision to accept the application 

by the Court. The decision (by the State Administration Agency/Officer/Institution) 

to execute the decision to accept the application by the court is constitutive or 

declarative in nature. Referring to Article 17 number 2 of the Supreme Court 

Regulation No. 8 of 2017, if the Court accepts the petition for the decision to accept 

the petition to read the Petitioner’s request and requires the Agency/Institution/ 

Government Official to issue a Decree/take action referring to the Petitioner’s 

request. So the contents of the decision to accept the application by the Court in 

the Government Administration Act is an obligation for the Administrative Agency/ 

Institution/Official to issue a Decision/take Action. 

The obscurity of forced efforts related to the execution of the execution 

was also experienced in the implementation of Article 81 Paragraph (2) of the 

Government Administration Act. The forced effort is closely related to the 

execution of the decision to accept the application based on the implementation 

 
36Lotulung, Paulus Effendi. (2013). Hukum Tata Usaha Negara dan Kekuasaan. Jakarta: Salemba Humanika, 

p. 139. 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 111 

 

 

 
 

of a positive fictive principle that was not carried out by the state administrative 

body/official. Where sanctions in the Government Administration Act are basically 

similar to sanctions as for the State Administrative Court Act that is forced money 

(dwangsom) or temporary dismissal with/without obtaining office rights. 

Regarding forced money, there are no implementing regulations related to 

the procedures and mechanism for the payment of forced money that regulates 

the procedure for imposition, both time, the amount of forced money to be paid 

and related to the subject of imposition of forced money, whether charged to the 

agency/administrative officer or to the person of the Administrative official. As well 

as the temporary dismissal, there are no specific implementation rules yet so that 

this effort cannot be implemented. 

From this description, the lack of legal certainty related to execution 

in the State Administrative Court Law. In addition to the revocation of the State 

Administrative Decree as referred to in Article 97 Paragraph (9) letter a of the State 

Administrative Court Act, for which automatic execution applies as stipulated in 

Article 116 Paragraph (2) of the State Administrative Court Law, the execution of 

execution in Administrative Court is basically again, it depends on the awareness 

and good intentions of the state administrative body/officials to carry out the content 

of the decision in a self respect manner which results in legal uncertainty. That is 

because only the state administrative body/officials can carry out the contents of the 

decision. In addition, forced efforts to encourage the implementation of the contents 

of the decision are also unclear, so the regulations cannot be implemented. 

The public interest will potentially be greatly harmed because in terms of 

the execution provisions of the state administrative court decision the execution of 

the execution is related to the defendant’s obligation to issue a state administrative 

decision depending on the will or good will of the defendant. The forced effort as 

an effort related to the execution of the court’s decision cannot be realized. So if 

the defendant is reluctant/does not implement the contents of the decision, the 

execution of the state administrative court’s decision cannot be carried out. 

 
CONCLUSION 

 

Based on the study examined in this paper, it can be concluded that the verdict of 

the state administrative court can be executed is the verdict of the state administrative court 

inkracht van gewisdje (which has permanent legal force) and is condemnatoir. There are two 

things that require the execution of the defendant’s obligations related to the revocation of the 

Decree and the defendant’s obligations related to the issuance of the State Administration 

Decree and/or taking action. The obligation is accompanied by the imposition of compensation 

and the provision of rehabilitation. The provisions of execution of the execution of the decision 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

112 | 

 

 

 
 

related to the obligations of the defendant to revoke the decision are sufficient, through the 

provisions of automatic execution. On the other hand there is a legal vacuum related to the 

provisions of the execution of the decision containing the defendant’s obligation to issue a 

new and replacement state administration decision. The legal vacuum is because the unclear 

regulation regarding forced efforts and forced money reflects the lack of legal certainty 

regarding the execution of execution in state administrative courts. 

Constraints faced in the implementation of the execution of the decision of the 

Administrative Court after the enactment of the Government Administration Act are still 

the same as before the enactment of the law. Where there are four things that become 

obstacles, namely who orders and leads the execution, who carries out the execution, and 

how the procedures are carried out, the law does not regulate and then the implementation 

cannot be forced because it is highly dependent on government organs. The element 

of coercion as a characteristic of execution is not apparent, so potentially there is a 

possibility of being unworkable. Because the execution of the Administrative dispute is 

still based on self respect, and due to unclear rules both in the Administrative Court Law 

and the Government Administration Law and the absence of implementing regulations 

related to forced efforts, the defendant’s obligation to carry out his obligation to issue state 

administrative decisions cannot be forced, so that potentially could not be implemented, 

causing legal uncertainty. That is because the rights of the people contained in the state 

administration court ruling that inkracht van gewisjde cannot be realized. So that people 

do not get legal certainty in terms of the provisions and implementation of the execution of 

the State Administrative Court which is their right. 

 
REFERENCE 

 

Astomo, Putera. (2014). Eksistensi Peradilan Administrasi dalam Sistem Negara Hukum 

Indonesia. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro, 43(3), 363 – 371. 

doi: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.43.3.2014.363-371 

Bedner, Adriaan. (2013). Indonesian Legal Scholarship and Jurisprudence as an Obstacle 

for Transplanting Legal Institutions. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Cambridge 

University Press, 5(2), 253 – 273. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404512001145 

Bunga, Marten. (2018). Tinjauan Hukum Terhadap Kompetensi Peradilan Tata Usaha 

Negara dalam Menyelesaikan Sengketa Tanah. Gorontalo Law Review, Universitas 

Gorontalo, 1(1), 39 – 49. doi: https://doi.org/10.32662/golrev.v1i1.155 

Butt, Simon. (2013). Freedom of Information Law and Its Application in Indonesia: A 

Preliminary Assessment. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Cambridge University 

Press, 8(1), 1 – 42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2194607800000879 



Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 113 

 

 

 
 

Choudhury, Nafay. (2017). Revisiting Critical Legal Pluralism: Normative Contestations in 

the Afghan Courtroom. Asian Journal of Law and Society, Cambridge University 

Press, 4(1), 229 – 255. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2017.2 

Effendi, Maftuh. (2014). Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia Suatu Pemikiran ke Arah 

Perluasan Kompetensi Pasca Amandemen Kedua Undang-Undang Peradilan Tata 

Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 3(1), 25 – 36. 

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.3.1.2014.25-36 

Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 43 of 1991 concerning 

Compensation and Procedure for Implementation in State Administrative Court. 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 52 of 1991. Supplement to the 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 3448. 

Gusman, Delfina. (2010). Efektifitas Pelaksanaan Upaya Paksa Putusan Pengadilan 

Tata Usaha Negara yang telah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap. Masalah-Masalah 

Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro, 39(3), 221 – 230. doi: https://doi.org/10.14710/ 

mmh.39.3.2010.221-230 

Hadjon, Philipus M. (2015). Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Konteks Undang- 

Undang No. 30 Th. 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Jurnal Hukum dan 

Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 4(1), 51 – 64. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/ 

JHP.4.1.2015.51-64 

Harahap, Zairin. (2009). Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: PT. Raja 

Grafindo Persada. 
 

Harjiyatni, Francisca Romana, & Suswoto, Suswoto. (2017). Implikasi Undang-Undang 

Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan terhadap Fungsi Peradilan 

Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, Universitas Islam Indonesia 

Yogyakarta, 24(4), 601 – 624. doi: https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol24.iss4.art5 

Hayat, Hayat. (2015). Keadilan sebagai Prinsip Negara Hukum: Tinjauan Teoritis dalam 

Konsep Demokrasi. Padjadjaran: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), Universitas 

Padjadjaran, 2(2), 388 – 408. doi: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v2n2.a10 

Jiwantara, Firzhal Arzhi, Adolf, Huala, Wibowo, Gatot Dwi Hendro, & Cahyowati, R. R. 

(2018). The Extension of Absolute Competence of State Administrative Court 

after the Enactment of Act Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration 

in Indonesia. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, Allied Business 

Academies, 21(1), 1 – 11. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.3.1.2014.25-36
http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

114 | 

 

 

 
 

Jr., Dominic J. Nardi. (2018). Can NGOs Change the Constitution? Civil Society and the 

Indonesian Constitutional Court. Contemporary Southeast Asia, ISEAS – Yusof 

Ishak Institute, 40(2), 247 – 278. doi: https://doi.org/10.1355/cs40-2d 

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 77 of 1986. Supplement to the 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 3344. 

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 9 of 2004 concerning Amendment to Law No. 5 

of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. State Gazette of the Republic of 

Indonesia, Number 35 of 2004. Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic 

of Indonesia, Number 4380. 

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. State 

Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 157 of 2009. Supplement to the 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 5076. 

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 51 of 2009 concerning Second Amendment to 

Law No. 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. State Gazette of the 

Republic of Indonesia, Number 160 of 2009. Supplement to the State Gazette of 

the Republic of Indonesia, Number 5079. 

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of 

Legislation. State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 82 of 2011. 

Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 5234. 

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration. 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 292 of 2014. Supplement to 

the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 5601. 

Lotulung, Paulus Effendi. (2013). Hukum Tata Usaha Negara dan Kekuasaan. Jakarta: 

Salemba Humanika. 

Lubna, Lubna. (2015). Upaya Paksa Pelaksanaan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara 

dalam Memberikan Perlindungan Hukum kepada Masyarakat. Jurnal Ius: Kajian 

Hukum dan Keadilan, Universitas Mataram, 3(1), 159 – 171. doi: http://dx.doi. 

org/10.12345/ius.v3i7.205 

Mawardi, Irvan. (2016). Paradigma Baru PTUN: Respon Peradilan Administrasi terhadap 

Demokratisasi. Yogyakarta: Thafa Media. 

Petroski, Karen. (2013). Legal Fictions and the Limits of Legal Language. International 

Journal of Law in Context, Cambridge University Press, 9(4), 485 – 505. doi: 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552313000268 

http://dx.doi/


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 115 

 

 

 
 

Putrijanti, Aju. (2015). Kewenangan serta Obyek Sengketa di Peradilan Tata Usaha 

Negara Setelah Ada UU No. 30/2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Masalah-

Masalah Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro, 44(4), 425 – 430. doi: https:// 

doi.org/10.14710/mmh.44.4.2015.425-430 

Rafiqi, Rafiqi. (2017). Kompetensi Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Menyelesaikan 

Kasus Tanah tentang Hak Pengelolaan. JPPUMA: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan dan 

Sosial Politik UMA (Journal of Governance and Political Social UMA), Universitas 

Medan Area, 5(2), 108 – 115. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31289/jppuma.v5i2.1207 

Regulations of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 2015 

concerning Guidelines for Procedures for Obtaining a Decision on Acceptance of 

Requests to Obtain Decisions and/or Actions of Government Agencies or Officers. 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 1268. 

Regulations of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 2017 

concerning Guidelines for Procedures for Obtaining a Decision on Acceptance of 

Requests to Obtain Decisions and/or Actions of Government Agencies or Officers. 

State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 1751. 

Rodding, Budiamin. (2017). Keputusan Fiktif Negatif dan Fiktif Positif dalam Peningkatan 

Kualitas Pelayanan Publik. Tanjungpura Law Journal, Universitas Tanjungpura, 

1(1), 26 – 37. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/tlj.v1i1.18328 

Rumadan, Ismail. (2012). Problematika Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. 

Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 1(3), 435 – 462. doi: http:// 

dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.1.3.2012.435-462 

Simanjuntak, Enrico. (2014). Prospek Ombudsman Republik Indonesia dalam Rangka 

Memperkuat Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal 

Hukum dan Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 3(2), 163 – 176. doi: http://dx.doi. 

org/10.25216/JHP.3.2.2014.163-176 

Soleh, Mohammad Afifudin. (2018). Eksekusi terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha 

Negara yang Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap. Mimbar Keadilan, Universitas 17 Agustus 

1945 Surabaya, 11(1), 18 – 46. doi: https://doi.org/10.30996/mk.v0i0.1604 

Sonata, Depri Liber. (2014). Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Empiris: Karakteristik 

Khas dari Metode Meneliti Hukum. Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Universitas 

Lampung, 8(1), 15 – 35. doi: https://doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v8no1.283 

http://dx.doi.org/10.31289/jppuma.v5i2.1207
http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/tlj.v1i1.18328
http://dx.doi/


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

116 | 

 

 

 
 

Sudarsono. (2011). Pilihan Hukum dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara 

di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. In I Gede Yusa (Ed.), Demokrasi, HAM & 

Konstitusi: Perspektif Negara – Bangsa untuk Menghadirkan Keadilan; “Kado 

untuk Sang Guru Prof. Dr. I Dewa Gede Atmadja, S.H., M.S. Malang: Setara Press. 

Suhariyanto, Budi. (2019). Urgensi Kriminalisasi Contempt of Court untuk Efektivitas 

Pelaksanaan Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Konstitusi, Mahkamah 

Konstitusi RI, 16(1), 192 – 211. doi: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk16110 

Sunge, Maisara. (2009). Efektivitas Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. 

Jurnal Inovasi, Ikatan Mahasiswa Pascasarjana dan Alumni Gorontalo di Bandung, 

6(4), 70 – 83. 

Untoro, Untoro. (2018). Self-Respect dan Kesadaran Hukum Pejabat Tata Usaha Negara 

Menuju Keadilan. Pandecta: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum (Research Law Journal), 

Universitas Negeri Semarang, 13(1), 37 – 49. doi: https://doi.org/10.15294/ 

pandecta.v13i1.7856 

Wahyunadi, Yodi Martono. (2016). Kompetensi Absolut Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara 

dalam Konteks Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi 

Pemerintahan. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, Mahkamah Agung RI, 5(1), 135 – 

154. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.5.1.2016.135-154 

Wairocana, I Gusti Ngurah, Sudiarta, I Ketut, Layang, I Wayan Bela Siki, Sudiarawan, 

Kadek Agus, & Pramana, I Gede Pasek. (2019). The Expansion of Administrative 

Decision Meaning Based on Government Administration Law: A Dispute 

Submission Process Approach. Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master 

Law Journal), Universitas Udayana, 8(1), 13 – 33. doi: https://doi.org/10.24843/ 

JMHU.2019.v08.i01.p02 

Wijayanta, Tata. (2014). Asas Kepastian Hukum, Keadilan dan Kemanfaatan dalam 

Kaitannya dengan Putusan Kepailitan Pengadilan Niaga. Jurnal Dinamika 

Hukum, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, 14(2), 216 – 226. doi: http://dx.doi. 

org/10.20884/1.jdh.2014.14.2.291 

Yulianto, Eko.   (2017).   Hukum Acara   dan   Praktek   Peradilan   Tata   Usaha   Negara. 

In Pendidikan Khusus Profesi Advokat. Yogyakarta: Indonesian Advocates 

Association (PERADI) in collaboration with Gadjah Mada University. 

Yulius, Yulius. (2018). Diskursus Lembaga Eksekusi Negara dalam Penegakan Hukum di 

Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Peratun, Mahkamah Agung RI, 1(1), 11 – 32. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/JHP.5.1.2016.135-154
http://dx.doi/


Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2019 : 89 - 117 

Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision 

| 117 

 

 

 
 

Yusa, I Gede, & Hermanto, Bagus. (2017). Gagasan Rancangan Undang-Undang 

Lembaga Kepresidenan: Cerminan Penegasan dan Penguatan Sistem Presidensiil 

Indonesia. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Azasi Manusia 

RI, 14(3), 313 – 323. 

Yusa, I Gede, et al. (2016). Hukum Tata Negara: Pasca Perubahan UUD NRI 1945. 

Malang: Setara Press. 
 

Yuslim, Yuslim. (2015). Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika. 


