EXECUTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DECISION
Article 115,116 and 117
Law No. 9/2004
by Dewi Asimah



Presented as materials for discussion with The Chief Judge of Seoul
Administrative Court,Honourable SOHN YONG KEUN, LLD, who visited
to Denpasar on November 2007 for comparative study and discussed
about the Administrative Law and Court both in Indonesia and Korea
Issues and Constraints in the
execution of Administrative
Decision
Legal Culture
Excess of the Corruption, Collusion
and Nepotism Practices
Legal Awareness
Law of Procedure Facility
Article 116 (4) Law No. 9/2004
In the case where the convicted is
unwilling to execute the verdict, a
forced attempt such as penalty
and/or administrative sanction
will be imposed.
PUBLICATION ON MASS MEDIA
Article 116 (5) Law No. 9/2004
Court registar shall publish the non
compliant state officials who fails
verdict as mentioned in paragraph
(4) on local printed mass media
following failure to observe the
provision articulated under
paragraph (3).
PENALTY
In imposing penalty, it should be notice
that the penalty will only be imposed
upon noncompliance of the responsible
official to the judge decision
WHO SHALL PAY THE PENALTY ?
The cost will be born by state finance, or
by the individual under discussion.
1. DUTY FAULT (faute de serve) Theoretically,
a state official who is on duty is assuming
states role. Therefore, when during this time
he/she incurs damage on others/public, as
long as the tasks are within the legal corridor,
it will then justified that the lost of the
affected people born by the state.
2. INDIVIDUAL FAULT (faute
personelle).Unlikely, when a state official is
noncompliance to the judges verdict when
he/she is not assuming an official role, the
cost of his/her noncompliance shall be born
individually.
This is in line with the theory of fault
developed from the Counseil dEtat
jurisprudence, with at the essence
distinguishes on duty fault (faute de serve)
and individual fault (faute personelle).

It is correct to charge the penalty to
individual/official in office, when an official is
noncompliance to the administrative court
decision.

The actions by the noncompliant officials
above is personal legal breach, when the
person is not on duty. As the consequence,
the penalty shall be born personally.
PUBLICITY
The positive aspect of the publicity theory
indicates that publicity pressure could
motivate a person to act in compliant with the
prevailing law, including court verdict, given
the inconvenience the person might bear
when his/her noncompliance is exposed to
public.
According to the theory, publication could
pressure the government to carry out what
has been decided under the law or by legal
institution
Provisions on the execution of decision of
Law No. 5/1986 are still insufficient to
satisfy state administrative and public
legal interests.
Therefore, significant changes need to be in
place, such as imposition of sanctions,
penalties and/or administrative sanction,
publication on mass media. These are
expected to promote better legal practices
among state apparatuses so that decision can
be executed properly to satisfy public legal
interest.
The Execution of Administrative Court Decision
(Rule No.9/2004 Article 116)






To Enact Decision
The Judgment has
final and binding
Compensation
Rehabilitation
To Revoke Decision
CHIEF OF THE
ADM. COURT
PLAINTIFF/
APPLICANT FOR
EXECUTION
DEFENDANT
ADM OFFICIAL
PENALTY
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION
BE PUBLISHED ON
MASS MEDIA
In 4 months, Adm
decision has no
longer legal force
The Judgement
is not executed
The Judgement
is executed