<![CDATA[The authority to examine cases in administrative courts serves as a benchmark for the extent to which a state can provide legal protection for citizens harmed by government actions or decisions. This study aims to analyze and compare the case-examination authority of the State Administrative Court (PTUN) in Indonesia with the Administrative Court in Thailand. This research employs a normative-juridical method with a statutory and comparative approach, supported by secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials analyzed descriptively-analytically. The results show that Indonesia's PTUN, based on Law Number 5 of 1986 in conjunction with Law Number 51 of 2009, adheres to a formal-adversarial mechanism within a tiered court structure under the Supreme Court, whereas Thailand's Administrative Court, based on the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999), stands separate from the ordinary courts and adopts a more flexible inquisitorial examination style. In terms of effectiveness, the Indonesian system excels in procedural certainty and layered review, while the Thai system excels in the speed of dispute resolution and the breadth of legal protection for citizens. These differences are influenced by normative regulation, institutional structure, procedural approach, and pre-litigation requirements in each country. These findings are expected to serve as a consideration for reforming Indonesia's state administrative court procedural law toward a more responsive direction without sacrificing legal certainty.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
