1

ABSTRACT

The first causal possibility of the decreasing case numbers meddled in

the State Administration Court concerns the aphetic attitude in society reluctantly

to claim cases into the Court – they regard it as difficult to execute a verdict. The

second includes the State Administrators’ further awareness of legality in making

decision and policy, so there may not be any necessarily policy to claim.

Relating to the first possibility, indeed the first weakness of the

Regulations No. 5 1986 of State Administration Court is that there is no guarantee

for the legally persistent verdict in which the Officers may still execute. The

second one is that there is no force effort in the Regulations. Therefore, it is

important to empower the State Administration Court, to live its verdicts and to

make it useful for justice seeker.

There are only three force efforts in the Regulations No. 9/2004 of the

Revision of Regulations No. 5/1986 of State Administration Court; those are force

charge payment instruction or dwangsom, administrative sanction and publication

in local Print Media or Publication principle of the verdict unexecuted by any

relevant officers. From the three types of them, only two may be implemented,

publication in print media and administrative sanction (in particular, for Civil

Servants).

The first sanction today has been not executed at all, since there are no

Government Regulations concerning of the force charge payment or dwangsom

ways, who is responsible for the force charge (the relevant officer or the State),

and for whom it may distribute. Supreme Court has no capability of issuing the
 2

Supreme Court regulations (Peraturan Mahkamah Agung/PERMA) or Supreme

Court Circular (Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung/SEMA), for the PERMA or

SEMA effects only on case process in the Court. The force charge only processes

by the Government Regulations rather than the Supreme Court Regulations;

therefore, the Government should carry out regulations of the charge.

The new administrative sanction only put the civil servants into effect.

This is in Government Regulations No. 30/1980 of Civil Servant Discipline, while

the administrative sanction mechanism for President and other Officers, such as

Ministers is not put into effect. The Impeachment mechanism does put into effect

for the President; however, it is not the administrative sanction.

Subsequently, if the last effort, publication, has put into effect, but the

State Administrator accused as a guilty by the State Administration verdict

follows no sentences, then may he be charged for another sanction such as

criminal?

Understanding of provision of Section 116 article (4) in Regulations

No. 9/ 2004 raises problems when the Administrator with legal power endures the

sentence of the Court (in kracht van gewijsde). This makes seeker justice in

society pessimistic about the existence of court institutions as it already meets no

their entire expectation. According to the author’s observation, one of causal

factors of the court verdict violations is that there are no positive laws possibly

forming law culture in State Apparatus who is obedient and loyal to court

instruction or verdict.

Therefore, it is important to theoretically study a clear statement or

 3

clue to solve the problems in terms of criminal sanction. Implementing the

criminal sanction on the State Administrators or its Bodies contempt the execution

from the Court with permanent power may hopefully teach them a lesson. Thus,

the officers tend to immediately endure every verdict in order to avoid contempt

of court. If there exist regulations of contempt of court in Indonesia, there may be

altering from ignoring to following the verdict of the Court in The State

Administration.

This research aims to outline opposition to the Court related to the

Execution from the State Administration Court. Based on scope and problem

identification, the main problem in this paper will be discussed in juridical

normative manner. The research involves the normative method. The normative

approach will include primary, secondary and tertiary law sources. Type of data in

this work contains secondary and primary data. Data and information obtained

will stated qualitatively using the descriptive-analytical approach.