A government decision can hit a business through a suspended licence, a sanction, or a withdrawn entitlement. An unfavourable decision alone does not make it unlawful. Two questions frame the analysis. Does the decision or action fall within the scope of administrative judicial review? Can the challenger establish a legally recognised defect?
Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 (“UU AP”), sets out authority, procedure, and general principles. Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court, amended by Law No. 9 of 2004 and Law No. 51 of 2009 (“PTUN Law”), governs the forum and procedure for administrative claims. Supreme Court Regulations No. 6 of 2018 (“PERMA 6/2018”) and No. 2 of 2019 (“PERMA 2/2019”) govern, respectively, disputes following an administrative remedy and disputes involving Government Actions and unlawful acts by officials.
What Turns a Decision or Action Into a Reviewable Act
Article 87 of UU AP broadens the meaning of a State Administrative Decision, expressly extending it to factual government actions. The concept now covers written determinations, decisions across institutions, decisions grounded in legislation or the General Principles of Good Governance (“AUPB”), decisions final in a broader sense, and decisions producing legal consequences for the public.
The distinction between a Decision and a Government Action matters. UU AP defines Keputusan and Tindakan separately, and PERMA 2/2019 sets its own procedure for Government Actions. Coverage under Article 87 does not make every Government Action a Decision. The applicable framework depends on how the act is characterised.
A signed letter is not the only relevant form. Factual actions and administrative decisions fall within PTUN jurisdiction where statutory requirements are met and the act produces, or can legally produce, the required legal consequences, and conduct short of a formal letter does not automatically qualify either.
What Makes a Claim Viable
Reviewability alone does not decide a case. A claim needs a defect, from two possible sources.
UU AP addresses the validity of the decision itself. Article 70 treats a Decision or Government Action as invalid where an unauthorised official issues it, exceeds their authority, or acts arbitrarily. Article 71 treats procedural or substantive errors as grounds for annulment. The PTUN Law’s Article 53 frames lawsuit grounds around conflict with legislation and violation of AUPB.
A decision can be vulnerable through defects in authority, procedure, or substance under UU AP, or through conflict with legislation or AUPB under the PTUN Law. Disagreement with a policy outcome does not supply a claim, even where it costs revenue.
A Licence Suspension Shows How the Analysis Works
Take a company whose licence is suspended after an inspection. The disciplined approach starts with the instrument’s legal nature, distinguishing decision from warning, then the issuing authority’s statutory source and the procedure followed. A missing delegation of authority or a skipped notice period supplies a defect a court can assess, and absent one, disagreement with the outcome does not establish annulment.
What to Examine Once an Adverse Decision Arrives
Seven points structure the response to an unfavourable decision.
- Identify which decision or action is being challenged.
- Confirm the issuing body or official and its statutory authority.
- Examine the statutory and regulatory basis for the decision.
- Review whether procedural requirements were followed.
- Test the decision against AUPB.
- Determine whether an administrative remedy applies before litigation.
- Check the filing deadline and build the strategy around it.
Administrative Remedies
Where the governing regulation provides an administrative remedy, PERMA 6/2018 treats it as a precondition to litigation, and the court’s authority to hear the dispute follows exhaustion of that remedy. Where none applies, UU AP’s mechanism governs instead. A claimant cannot default to PTUN because litigation looks faster.
Administrative remedies generally apply to Government Action disputes, subject to the exceptions recognised under applicable law. PERMA 2/2019 requires the same exhaustion under UU AP and PERMA 6/2018 before PTUN can hear such a claim. Where a sector-specific regulation governs that remedy, the first-instance forum shifts from PTUN to the High Administrative Court.
Filing Deadlines
For disputes that follow an administrative remedy, PERMA 6/2018 sets a 90-working-day period from receipt or announcement of the decision on that remedy, counted in working days and shifting with remedy type and sectoral rules. Government Action disputes follow a separate 90-working-day framework under PERMA 2/2019, paused while the claimant pursues a remedy and resumed once the final decision arrives.
AUPB has statutory content. Article 10 of UU AP lists legal certainty, benefit, impartiality, carefulness, prohibition against abuse of authority, openness, public interest, and good service. Proportionality and non-discrimination can still matter but sit alongside it.
Standing narrows the field. The claimant must show the challenged decision or action adversely affects its legally protected interests, not a general objection to government policy.
Sequencing the Argument
Identifying the correct legal object often settles a dispute. A claim aimed at the wrong act, filed in the wrong forum, or filed before an available remedy has been exhausted can fail regardless of merit. The strongest challenge links a specific decision to a defect, clears the remedy question, and reaches PTUN within the deadline.
