<![CDATA[Purpose: This study aims to reconstruct the administrative sanctions framework in Indonesia by integrating restorative justice principles and international human rights standards into the exercise of public officials’ discretion, particularly in the implementation of bestuursdwang and dwangsom. Research Methodology: This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis examines three permanent decisions of the State Administrative Court (PTUN) to identify structural weaknesses in the current administrative sanctions system and evaluate their compatibility with human rights principles. Results: The findings demonstrate that unilateral sanctioning practices without meaningful dialogue, proportional remedies, and corrective mechanisms may constitute human rights deficiencies by undermining the right to good administration and the right to effective correction. The study identifies the need to transform sanctions from coercive instruments into rights-oriented administrative mechanisms. Conclusions: A reconstructed framework is proposed through four pillars: a graduated dialogue mechanism before imposing final sanctions, mandatory restoration and proportional compensation, the adoption of international human rights standards as legitimacy parameters, and strengthening administrative court capacity through restorative hearings and clear guidelines. Limitations: This study is limited to normative analysis and three PTUN decisions, restricting broader empirical generalization. Contributions: This research contributes a transformative administrative sanctions model that integrates restorative justice and human rights approaches to promote accountable, proportionate, and humane public administration]]>
Copyrights © 2026
