The Supreme Court 2026 edition of Book II on Technical Guidelines for Administration and Judicial Procedures for the General Court and the Administrative Court were formally brought into force through Supreme Court Decree No. 159/KMA/SK.HK2/VIII/2026. The new framework replaces the previous 2006 basis for the Book II guidelines and is intended to promote greater uniformity, legal certainty, accountability, and accessibility in judicial administration.
The Supreme Court has explained that the revision was prompted by developments in legislation, procedural law, judicial administration, and information technology, as well as the need to consolidate increasingly dispersed regulations and practices.
One of the most significant contextual developments behind the 2026 Book II is digital transformation.
The Supreme Court has stated that the existing Book II required modernization because judicial administration had changed substantially, particularly following the introduction of electronic court administration. The new Book II was developed through a process involving judges, court leadership, judicial administration officials, directorates general, and other relevant institutional actors.
The reform is also connected to the wider digitalization of court administration, including the use of e-Court and the Sistem Informasi Administrasi Perkara (SIAP). According to information published by the Indonesian judiciary concerning the implementation of the 2026 Book II, harmonization between the new guidelines and electronic systems is intended to support more transparent and accountable judicial administration.
From this perspective, transparency has at least three dimensions, i.e.:
- Procedural transparency requires parties to understand the status and stages of proceedings affecting their legal interests.
- Administrative transparency requires court officers to maintain accurate and accountable records of judicial acts, including acts relating to seizure and execution.
- Institutional transparency enables the public to monitor the performance of the judiciary within the limits established by applicable information-access rules and protections for confidential or legally restricted information.
In this article, we will examine the guidelines for the technical administration and judicial procedures for execution and seizure before the General Court (Peradilan Umum) and the Administrative Court (Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara) as described below:
- Technical Guidelines for Execution and Seizure of Civil Case Before the General Court
- Seizure as a Security Instrument
In civil litigation, seizure serves an important protective function. A court-ordered seizure may prevent property relevant to a dispute from being transferred, concealed, or otherwise placed beyond the reach of the eventual judgment. The institution therefore connects the adjudicative process with the practical protection of the parties’ legal interests.
The Book II framework distinguished several forms of civil seizure, including conservatoir beslag (conservatory seizure), revindicatoir beslag (revindication seizure), persamaan beslag (comparative seizure), and execution seizure.
The distinction between forms of seizure is important because seizure is not simply an administrative act of taking possession of property. It affects property rights and may have significant consequences for the parties and third parties. Accordingly, its implementation must remain connected to the authority of the court, the object identified in the proceedings, the applicable procedural requirements, and the rights of a party affected by the seizure.
This is particularly important in execution proceedings. The traditional Book II guidance, for example, recognized limitations on seizure where particular animals or tools were genuinely necessary for the debtor’s livelihood. Such limitations demonstrate that execution is not intended to operate without regard to proportionality and legally protected interests.
The 2026 modernization of Book II should therefore be understood within a broader effort to standardize judicial practice while adapting procedural administration to contemporary legal and technological developments.
- Execution as the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions
In general terms, execution is the mechanism through which a court ensures that an enforceable judgment is carried out when voluntary compliance does not occur. In Indonesian civil procedure, the execution process may involve the court, the execution applicant, the respondent, the bailiff (jurusita), and, where relevant, other institutions involved in the administration or sale of seized property.
The Book II framework distinguished several forms of civil execution including, Execution of Mortgage Security (Hak Tanggungan), Execution of Fiduciary Security (Jaminan Fidusia) dan Execution of Final and Binding Judgments.
Book II framework also recognizes, among other matters, the transformation of certain valid seizures into execution seizures and the possibility of resistance to execution by third parties who claim legal rights over the property concerned. These principles illustrate an important distinction: execution is not merely an administrative continuation of litigation; it is a legally controlled process in its own right.
The court must therefore ensure that the execution corresponds to the operative part of the judgment and that the procedural requirements for execution have been satisfied. The role of the court is not simply to facilitate the winning party’s interests, but to implement the judgment within the boundaries established by law.
The execution function also explains the importance of the bailiff. Judicial bailiffs perform functions including the implementation of seizure and execution, preparation of official records, and administration of their judicial duties. Their work creates an official procedural record of what occurred during the implementation of the court’s order.
Furthermore, the digitalization of judicial procedure can also strengthen execution administration in several ways. It can improve the recording of requests for execution, facilitate the tracking of procedural stages, reduce duplication of administrative work, and provide more consistent documentation. It can also make the authorized parties easier to obtain information about the procedural status of their cases.
- Technical Guidelines for Execution and Seizure of Criminal Case Before the General Court
The provisions concerning seizure (sita) in criminal proceedings under the Technical Guidelines for Administration and Judicial Proceedings have a different meaning from those governing seizure in civil proceedings.
As explained above, the provisions concerning seizure in civil proceedings refer to the blocking and prevention of any transfer of the subject matter of the dispute, as well as the assets belonging to debtors, creditors, and other third parties, while the relevant civil proceedings are still under examination and have not yet resulted in a final and binding judgment.
In contrast, the provisions concerning seizure in criminal proceedings concern the procedures for securing evidence, proceeds of crime, and objects used in the commission of a criminal offense, which may be seized, retained, and secured by the police or the public prosecutor’s office during the examination of the criminal case until the case has resulted in a final and binding judgment.
Under the technical and judicial administration procedures applicable to the handling of criminal cases in the general courts, there is no procedure for filing an application for execution. This is because the authority to execute a judgment rest entirely with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, generally through the competent District Prosecutor’s Office (Kejaksaan Negeri), and more specifically with the public prosecutor assigned to the relevant case.
- Technical Guidelines for Execution and Seizure Before the Administrative Court
Unlike the technical administration and judicial procedures applicable to the District Courts (General Courts), the administrative court system does not recognize applications for seizure (sita) as part of its judicial authority. This is because the subject matter of disputes before the Administrative Courts concerns government policies or administrative decisions (beschikking). Accordingly, the proceedings are focused on examining the formal procedures and legal processes through which such government policies or administrative decisions (beschikking) are issued and therefore do not require the seizure or securing of any property.
The document expressly refers to a “penetapan sita dan berita acara sita” as part of the case record when applicable. However, in the specific chapter governing PTUN execution, the Guidelines do not establish seizure as the general enforcement mechanism. Instead, execution focuses primarily on compliance with the operative part of the judgment, administrative enforcement, compensation, rehabilitation, and related supervision.
Further, the 2026 Technical Guidelines for the Administrative Court (Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara/ PTUN) place execution at the center of ensuring that a final court judgment has practical effect. Execution is not treated simply as an administrative conclusion to litigation. It is a structured process involving the court, the execution applicant, the respondent, and, where necessary, other government institutions. Once a judgment has permanent legal force, the court supervises its implementation through defined procedures and time limits.
The Guidelines distinguish several forms of execution. For decisions requiring the revocation of an administrative decision, the issuance of a new decision, or the performance, cessation, or non-performance of governmental action, the Guidelines provide an enforcement mechanism when the obligation is not voluntarily fulfilled. The court may summon the parties for execution supervision. If non-compliance continues, the procedure may escalate through administrative enforcement measures, including communication with the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and the relevant internal government supervisory apparatus. Continued failure may lead to a formal coercive measure and notification to the President and the representative legislature.
Execution also covers compensation and rehabilitation. Compensation judgments are transmitted to the relevant government body and budget authority, while rehabilitation has its own supervision procedure. Where rehabilitation cannot be implemented fully, the Guidelines provide a compensation mechanism. These procedures demonstrate that execution is designed to address different forms of obligations rather than applying one uniform model.
In conclusion, the 2026 edition of Supreme Court Technical Guidelines for both the General Court and the Administrative Court represent an important development in the modernization of Indonesia’s judicial administration. Its implementation through Supreme Court Decree No. 159/KMA/SK.HK2/VIII/2026 reflects the Supreme Court’s effort to update judicial guidance in response to changes in law, procedure, administration, and technology.
Within this framework, seizure, execution, and transparency are closely interconnected.
Seizure provides a mechanism for protecting the effectiveness of judicial proceedings and judgments. Execution transforms an enforceable judicial decision into a practical legal outcome. Transparency ensures that these coercive judicial mechanisms operate within a framework of procedural clarity, administrative accountability, and lawful access to information.
Disclaimer: This report is solely for general information only and never constitutes as legal or tax advice. The user shall further consult with any qualified advisor before referring to any or entire part of this report. Any available copyrights are reserved.
For Further Information, Please Contact:
MetaLAW, Legal Consultant, Jakarta, Indonesia
general@metalaw.id
