Regulatory Weaknesses in Legal Enforcement Against Administrative Court Decision Neglect in Indonesia's Administrative Law System

The Administrative Court (PTUN) serves as a critical pillar in Indonesia's legal system, tasked with reviewing and annulling unlawful decisions made by state administrative officials. Despite the binding nature of its decisions, implementation remains alarmingly low. Between 2017 and 2023, only 108 out of 12,877 final and binding PTUN rulings were voluntarily enforced. This empirical reality underscores a fundamental weakness in Indonesia’s administrative law enforcement mechanism. This study critically analyses the regulatory framework governing the enforcement of PTUN decisions, focusing on Law No. 51/2009 (particularly Article 116), Law No. 30/2014, PP No. 94/2021, and Supreme Court Regulation No. 8/2017, alongside Constitutional Court Decision No. 24/PUU-XXII/2024. Using a socio-legal approach and critical qualitative analysis, this article evaluates the structural, normative, and procedural dimensions of the current system. It reveals a consistent pattern of regulatory inefficacy, marked by vague procedural standards, fragmented institutional responsibilities, and limited coercive mechanisms. This study identifies three critical regulatory gaps: (1) absence of independent execution bodies, (2) symbolic sanctions without deterrent effect, and (3) a flawed hierarchical enforcement model that relies heavily on superior officials’ discretion. The study proposes a novel hybrid reconstruction that integrates best practices from international models—such as contempt of court and execution authorities in the U.S., France, and Thailand—with Pancasila-based dignified justice principles. This hybrid model offers a constitutional and culturally grounded framework to strengthen administrative court authority and protect citizens' legal certainty.