Between Administrative and Constitutional Jurisdiction: Investigating Dual Pathways to Justice in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35335/laweco.v19i3.225Keywords:
State Administrative Court Constitutional Court, jurisdictional overlap, legal uncertainty, administrative adjudication, constitutional reviewAbstract
This study explores the intersection of administrative and constitutional adjudication in Indonesia, focusing on the overlapping jurisdictions of the State Administrative Court (PTUN) and the Constitutional Court (MK). Although these institutions were established to complement one another within a system of checks and balances, their concurrent mandates often generate legal uncertainty and procedural inefficiencies. Employing normative legal research and a conceptual framework, the analysis examines primary sources (the 1945 Constitution, PTUN Act, Constitutional Court Act, Government Administration Act), secondary literature, and illustrative case law. Through statutory, conceptual, and case‐based approaches, the study identifies points of convergence and divergence in the courts’ competencies, as well as the practical implications for citizens seeking redress. The findings reveal that PTUN’s focus on concrete administrative acts and the MK’s review of abstract legal norms can lead to contradictory outcomes: a PTUN judgment may vindicate a claimant without invalidating the underlying statute, while an MK annulment of a norm does not automatically reverse prior administrative decisions. This dual‐track system imposes duplicative litigation burdens, prolongs resolution timelines, increases costs, and ultimately erodes public confidence in the rule of law. To resolve the overlapping jurisdictions between PTUN and MK, this study recommends clearer statutory delineation of competencies, coordinated case-management protocols, and the possible establishment of a unified forum for disputes with both administrative and constitutional dimensions. Strengthening institutional synergy through capacity building and enhancing transparency in jurisdictional guidance are also essential to ensure consistency, reduce litigation burdens, and restore public trust in the rule of law
References
Abdullah, A. (2021). Teori Dan Praktik Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Pasca-Amandemen: Pergeseran Paradigma dan Perluasan Norma Edisi Kedua. Prenada Media.
Ali, S. (2025a). Juridical Analysis of the Position of PTUN in Resolving State Administrative Disputes. Estudiante Law Journal, 7(2), 317–330.
Ali, S. (2025b). Juridical Analysis of the Position of PTUN in Resolving State Administrative Disputes. Estudiante Law Journal, 7(2), 317–330.
Ali, Z. (2021). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Sinar Grafika.
Ardiansyah, N., Nur, M., & Haeril, H. (2025a). The Legal-Political Paradox in Granting Absolute Jurisdiction to the Administrative Court (PTUN) over the Judicial Review of Abuse of Authority in Indonesia. JURNAL SYNTAX IMPERATIF: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan, 6(3), 392–402.
Ardiansyah, N., Nur, M., & Haeril, H. (2025b). The Legal-Political Paradox in Granting Absolute Jurisdiction to the Administrative Court (PTUN) over the Judicial Review of Abuse of Authority in Indonesia. JURNAL SYNTAX IMPERATIF: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan, 6(3), 392–402.
Asmuni, A. (2020). Eksekusi Putusan Penundaan Pelaksanaan Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara. Jatiswara, 35(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29303/jtsw.v35i3.270
Asmuni, A. (2024). The Abuse of Power Philosophy in Government Administration. Media of Law and Sharia, 5(2), 119–125.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2020). Contemporary issues on constitutional law. In Advancing Rule of Law in a Global Context (pp. 228–233). CRC Press.
Berman, P. S. (2012). Global legal pluralism: A jurisprudence of law beyond borders. Cambridge University Press.
Bhakti, T. S., & SH, M. H. (2022). Pembangunan Hukum Administrasi Negara Melalui Pemberdayaan Yurisprudensi Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Penerbit Alumni.
Dani, U. (2019). The Effectiveness Of Administrative Review In Indonesia’S Administrative Court System. Prophetic Law Review, 58–74.
Dinanti, S. (n.d.). Juridical Analysis of Settlement of Factual Actions Carried Out by the Government as Objects of Dispute in the Semarang State Administrative Court. Ratio Legis Journal, 3(1), 101–115.
Fahmi, K., Nuringdyah, E., Hasani, I., Syarif, A., & Khoir, A. (2013). Dinamika Perlindungan Hak Konstitusional Warga; Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Mekanisme Nasional Baru Pemajuan dan Perlindungan HAM. Pustaka Masyarakat Setara.
Faiz, P. M. (2016). The protection of civil and political rights by the constitutional court of Indonesia. Indon. L. Rev., 6, 158.
Gersen, J. E. (2006). Overlapping and underlapping jurisdiction in administrative law. The Supreme Court Review, 2006(1), 201–247.
Isra, S., & Faiz, P. M. (2024). The Indonesian Constitutional Court: An Overview. Courts and Diversity, 55–94.
Johnny Ibrahim. (2005). Teori dan Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Bayumedia Publishing.
Metzger, G. E. (2010). Ordinary administrative law as constitutional common law. Columbia Law Review, 479–536.
Oko, O. (2009). The lawyer’s role in a contemporary democracy, promoting the rule of law, lawyers in fragile democracies and the challenges of democratic consolidation: The Nigerian experience. Fordham Law Review, 77(4), 1295.
Philipus M. Hadjon. (2001). Penerapan UU No. 5 Tahun 1986. Makalah Pembanding Seminar Sehari Sepuluh Tahun Peratun, 2.
Rahmawati, D. U. C., & Hasani, I. (2013). Masa Depan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI Naskah Konferensi Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pemajuan Hak Konstitusional Warga.
Rumadan, I. (2012). Problematika Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 1(3), 435–462.
Russo, C. J. (2015). Religious freedom in education: A fundamental human right. Religion & Education, 42(1), 17–33.
Simanjuntak, E. (2020). The Rise and the Fall of the Jurisdiction of Indonesia’s Administrative Courts: Impediments and Prospects. Indon. L. Rev., 10, 159.
Sweet, A. S. (2000). Governing with judges: constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.
Syafridah, F. A. (2020). Implementasi Constitutional Question dalam Perspektif Paradigma Hukum Profetik. Al-Balad: Journal of Constitutional Law, 2(2).
Teitel, R., & Howse, R. (2008). Cross-judging: tribunalization in a fragmented but interconnected global order. NYUJ Int’l L. & Pol., 41, 959.
Wicaksono, D. A., & Rahman, F. (2022). Influencing or Intervention? Impact of Constitutional Court Decisions on the Supreme Court in Indonesia. Const. Rev., 8, 260.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ainuddin Ainuddin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
