<![CDATA[This study examines the legal implications of restricting government officials and government agencies from filing petitions for reconsideration (Peninjauan Kembali/PK) in State Administrative Court disputes following Constitutional Court Decision Number 24/PUU-XXII/2024. Prior to this decision, government officials acting as defendants in administrative disputes were entitled to seek reconsideration against final and binding court judgments. However, this legal remedy was frequently criticized for delaying the execution of judicial decisions and weakening legal protection for citizens. This research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The study analyzes relevant legislation, Constitutional Court decisions, legal doctrines, and scholarly literature to evaluate the legal rationale and implications of the new restriction. The findings indicate that the Constitutional Court’s decision strengthens the principles of legal certainty, judicial finality, and effective legal protection by preventing the misuse of petitions for reconsideration as a mechanism to postpone the enforcement of final judgments. Nevertheless, the restriction also raises constitutional concerns regarding equality before the law and the government’s right to legal remedies. From the perspectives of John Rawls’ theory of justice, Satjipto Rahardjo’s progressive legal theory, and Philipus M. Hadjon’s theory of legal protection, the restriction constitutes a proportional legal policy that balances the interests of the state and citizens while reinforcing the State Administrative Court’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights. The study concludes that Constitutional Court Decision Number 24/PUU-XXII/2024 represents an important development in Indonesian administrative procedural law by enhancing legal certainty and promoting more effective judicial protection for the public]]>
