<![CDATA[A final and binding court decision does not automatically provide real recovery for the winning party if the losing party is unwilling to comply voluntarily, given that Indonesia's civil execution system is passive in nature. Dwangsom serves as an indirect coercive instrument to encourage compliance, yet its implementation still faces obstacles, as shown in Bandung District Court Decision No. 347/Pdt.G/2024/PN.Bdg, which rejected the plaintiff's dwangsom request because the ruling only ordered a monetary payment. This case study examines the position and function of dwangsom as a legal protection instrument and analyzes whether the decision reflects substantive justice, using a normative juridical method with a statutory and case approach. The data consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, analyzed qualitatively and presented descriptively-analytically. The findings show that dwangsom remains applied repressively in judicial practice even though Articles 606a and 606b Rv are no longer formally in force, reinforced instead by Supreme Court jurisprudence and Circular Letter No. 7 of 2012. The rejection of the dwangsom request fails to reflect substantive justice, as the judges applied the norm textually without considering the defendant's record of non-compliance. This indicates the need for judges to exercise their discretionary authority more progressively to ensure genuine legal protection for aggrieved parties.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
