Juridical Interpretation of Non-Fully Executable Judgments in The Administrative Court
Downloads
Judgments that cannot be fully executed are frequently encountered in civil service disputes. Rehabilitation obligations are often hindered by changes in circumstances, which have consequently given rise to the notion of compensation. Determining compensation amounts also faces challenges, particularly due to tensions between legal norms and practical realities. This study pursues two main objectives: first, to examine the criteria that characterize judgments that cannot be fully executed, and second, to describe the implementation of compensation as a substitute mechanism in such cases. The research adopts a normative legal methodology utilizing statutory and conceptual approaches. The findings lead to two primary conclusions: first, judgments that cannot be fully executed are identified in cases where rehabilitation obligations in civil service disputes face specific obstacles, including (1) the plaintiff’s legal status no longer qualifying them to return to their former position; (2) the plaintiff’s position having been filled by another person; and (3) changes in the organizational structure. Second, the implementation of compensation is based on actual losses suffered by the plaintiff resulting from a State Administrative Decision that was declared invalid by the court. The amount of compensation is determined through an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. If such an agreement cannot be reached, the chief judge of the administrative court is authorized to determine a fair amount of compensation in accordance with the principles of propriety and reasonableness. The study highlights the need for procedural reform to address the gap between legal provisions and their practical application in executing administrative court judgments.
Bok, Arie Jansse. “Judicial Review of Administrative Decision by the Dutch Administrative Courts: Recours Objectif or Recours Subjectif? A Survey Including French and German Law.” In Judicial Law Making and Administrative Law, edited by F. Stroink and E. van der Linden, 143–160. Oxford: Intersentia Antwerpen, 2005
Anggraeni, Ricca and Indah Mutiara Sari. “Menelisik Tertib Hukum Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Melalui Validitas Suatu Norma Hukum”. Jurnal Crepido, vol. 2, no. 1 (2020), pp. 35-45, https://doi.org/10.14710/crepido.2.1.35-45
Aswaruddin, Sri Muliyani, Nurul Zahara Bancin, Maulana Yontino, Lutfhia Farhana Putri Lubis, and Said Agil Ad Darain. “Kompensasi”. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Indonesia, vol. 1, no. 1 (2023), pp. 57-64. https://doi.org/10.62017/jppi.v1i1.98
Bagley, Nicholas. “Remedial Restraint in Administrative Law.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 117, no. 2 (2017), pp. 253–318. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44159462
Baihaki, Muhammad Reza, Fathudin and Ahmad Tholabi Karlie. “Problematika Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka (Open Legal Policy) Masa Jabatan Hakim Konstitusi”. Jurnal Konstitusi, vol. 17, no 3 (2020), pp. 652-675. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1739
Bedner, Adriaan W. Administrative Courts in Indonesia (A Socio-Legal Study). Translated by Indra Krishnamurti, Jakarta: HuMa-Jakarta, 2010.
Bell, John S. "Comparative Administrative Law." In Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, edited by Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann, 1297-1318. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Dani, Umar. “Irregularity Protection of Citizens' Constitutional Rights to the Administrative Silence”. Jurnal Konstitusi, vol. 20, no. 3(2023), pp. 451-467. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2035
De Benedetto, Maria. “Effective Law from a Regulatory and Administrative Law Perspective.” European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 9, no. 3 (2018), pp. 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2018.52
Decision of the Chief Judge of Jakarta Administrative Court Number 294/G/2018/PTUN-Jkt dated October 11, 2021.
Decision of the Chief Judge of Serang Administrative Court Number 31/PEN-EKS/2021/PTUN.SRG, dated September 5, 2023.
Decision of the Supreme Court Number 1/Pen.Eks/2024, dated September 11, 2024.
Faisal, Faisal. "Menelusuri Teori Chaos dalam Hukum Melalui Paradigma Critical Theory". Yustisia, vol. 3, no. 2 (2014), pp. 131-136. https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v3i2.11108
Judgement of Jakarta Administrative Court Number 099/G.TUN/1996/PTUN-Jkt dated March 6, 1997, in conjunction with Judgement of Jakarta Administrative High Court Number 48/B/1997/PT.TUN.JKT dated July 4, 1997, in conjunction with Supreme Court Judgement Number 157 K/TUN/1998, dated May 3, 2001.
Judgement of Jakarta Administrative Court Number 294/G/ 2018/PTUN-JKT, dated May 18, 2019, in conjunction with Judgement of Jakarta Administrative High Court Number 226/B/2019/PT.TUN-JKT, dated September 12, 2019, in conjunction with Supreme Court Judgement Number 90 K/TUN/2020, dated March 19, 2020.
Judgement of Serang Administrative Court Number 31/G/2021/PTUN.SRG, dated September 21, 2021, in conjunction with the Judgement of Jakarta Administrative High Court Number: 252/B/2021/PT.TUN.JKT, dated December 2, 2021, in conjunction with Judgement of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 231 K/TUN/2022, dated April 12, 2022, in conjunction with Judgment Number: 33 PK/TUN/2023, dated March 21, 2023.
Indroharto. Usaha Memahami Undang-Undang tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, Buku II, Cetakan ke-9. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan, 2005.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum, Edisi Revisi Cetakan ke-9, Jakarta: Prenadamedia Group, 2014.
Michaels, Jon D. “An Enduring, Evolving Separation of Powers.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 115, no. 3 (2015), pp. 515–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43267874
Republic of Indonesia. Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning Administrative Court, SG. 1986/No.77, Supplementary SG No. 3344 (1986).
____________________. Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, SG No. 2009/157, Supplementary SG. No.5076 (2009);
____________________. Government Regulation Number 43 of 1991 concerning Compensation and Its Implementation Procedures in The Administrative Court, SG. 1991/No. 52, Supplementary SG No. 3448 (1991).
Shidarta, “Putusan Pengadilan sebagai Objek Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah”, Undang: Jurnal Hukum, vol. 5 no. 1 (2022), pp. 105-142, https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.5.1.105-142;
Stroink, F., and E. van der Linden. Judicial Law Making and Administrative Law. Oxford: Intersentia Antwerpen, 2005.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 2 of 2014 concerning Settlement of Cases in the Court of First Instance and Appeal Level in 4 (four) Judicial Environments (2014).
___________________________________. Decision of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Number 214/KMA/SK/XII/2014 dated December 31, 2014, concerning the Case Handling Period at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (2014).
Utama, Yos Johan. Membangun Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara yang Berwibawa, Inaugural Speech for Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Diponegoro University, Semarang, 2010.
Lotulung, Paulus Effendi. Lintasan Sejarah dan Gerak Dinamika Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: Salemba Humanika Publisher, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors confirm the transfer of all copyrights of the manuscripts to the Board Editors of Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan upon its acceptance for publication and that the Board Editors of Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan have the right to publish, republish, transmit, and distribute them in the JHP journal or other media.
- Manuscripts published by Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Every submitted manuscript should be accompanied by a "Copyright Notice" and "Ethical Statement".
