(Faculty of Law, Universitas Riau Kepulauan, Batam, 29425, Indonesia)
(2) * Rizki Tri Anugrah Bhakti
(Faculty of Law, Universitas Riau Kepulauan, Batam, 29425, Indonesia)(3) Dwi Afni Maileni
(Faculty of Law, Universitas Riau Kepulauan, Batam, 29425, Indonesia)(4) Indra Sakti
(Faculty of Law, Universitas Riau Kepulauan, Batam, 29425, Indonesia)*Corresponding author
AbstractPublic-order enforcement operations conducted by Indonesia’s Civil Service Police Unit-Satpol PP are an important instrument for enforcing Regional Regulations, yet their implementation frequently generates tension between public-order objectives and the protection of citizens’ rights. This study analyzes the legal limits of restrictions on citizens’ rights in Satpol PP enforcement operations through the principle of proportionality and formulates an operational normative review framework. The research adopts a doctrinal legal method using statutory, conceptual, case-based, and limited comparative approaches. The data consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials analyzed through doctrinal analysis and qualitative content analysis by means of a proportionality matrix covering legality, legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, balancing of impacts, and procedural safeguards and accountability. The findings show that the main problem in Satpol PP enforcement lies not merely in the absence of formal authority, but in the escalation of coercive measures without adequate justification and in weak procedural protection. The study’s novelty lies in proposing a stage-based proportionality review framework for Satpol PP enforcement operations that can be used to evaluate official action, strengthen standard operating procedures, and improve accountability in the enforcement of Regional Regulations from the perspectives of administrative law and the constitutional protection of citizens’ rights.
KeywordsProportionality; Satpol PP; Enforcement operations; Restrictions on citizens’ rights; Administrative
|
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.33122/ejeset.v7i1.1397 |
Article metricsAbstract views : 0 | PDF views : 0 |
Cite |
Full Text Download
|
References
Akmal, D. U., & Arlianti, D. L. (2022). Dinamika Perlindungan Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara Dalam Implementasi Pengujian Undang-Undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Mulawarman Law Review, 49–70. https://doi.org/10.30872/mulrev.v7i1.780
Arifin, F. (2025). Rekonseptualisasi Diskresi Perspektif Hukum Administrasi Negara: Analisis Kritis Terhadap Implementasi Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan Nasional. Audi Et AP : Jurnal Penelitian Hukum, 4(01), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.24967/jaeap.v4i01.3867
Bagir, Z. A., Asfinawati, Suhadi, & Arianingtyas, R. (2020). Limitations to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Indonesia: Norms and Practices. Religion & Human Rights, 15(1–2), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-BJA10003
Bendor, A. L., & Sela, T. (2015). How proportional is proportionality? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(2), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov028
Boughey, J. (2015). The Reasonableness of Proportionality in the Australian Administrative Law Context. Federal Law Review, 43(1), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.43.1.3
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Boyron, S., & Marique, Y. (2021). Proportionality in English Administrative Law: Resistance and Strategy in Relational Dynamics. Review of European Administrative Law, 14(1), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479821X16190058548736
Cohen-Eliya, M., & Porat, I. (2021). Proportionality in the Age of Populism. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 69(3), 449–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac005
Djidar, H., Darmadi, D., & Burhan, Y. (2024). Eksistensi Satuan Polisi Pamong Praja Dalam Penegakat Aturan di Kabupaten Luwu Timur. Journal Publicuho, 7(3), 1612–1626. https://doi.org/10.35817/publicuho.v7i3.524
Duniewska, Z. (2022). Zasada proporcjonalności a prawo administracyjne – zagadnienia wybrane. Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne, 123, 9–26. https://doi.org/10.26485/SPE/2022/123/1
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Hilda, H. H. S., Muflih Munazih, & Siti Kunarti. (2025). Tinjauan Hukum Administrasi Negara Terhadap Pembentukan Koperasi Desa Merah Putih Melalui Instruksi Presiden. JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW, 8(2), 901–922. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v8i2.12031
Hutchinson, T. (2015). The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law. Erasmus Law Review, 8(3), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000055
Hutchinson, T. ., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17, 83–119.
Jayadi, A. (2018). What Constitutes as Limitation of (Human) Rights in Indonesian Legal Context? Hasanuddin Law Review, 3(3), 290. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v3i3.1203
Kurniawan, I. G. A., Samsithawrati, P. A., & Lulo, L. de D. M. (2023). Eksistensi Sanksi Administratif Bisnis Digital dalam Perspektif Economic Analysis of Law. Jurnal Ius Constituendum, 8(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v8i1.6281
Lailam, T., & Anggia, P. (2023). The Indonesian Constitutional Court Approaches the Proportionality Principle to the Cases Involving Competing Rights. LAW REFORM, 19(1), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v19i1.54087
Maulidina, E. I. (2024). Urgensi Uji Kebutuhan dan Proporsionalitas dalam Pengecualian Hak-Hak Subjek Data Pribadi di Indonesia. Jurnal Analisis Hukum, 7(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.38043/jah.v7i2.5464
Mujaddidi, S. (2022). Konstitusionalitas Pembatasan Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 18(3), 539. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1833
Nurhikman, E. N., Djaja, N., & Luna, L. (2025). Proporsionalitas dan Akuntabilitas dalam Tata Kelola Digital Atas Pembatasan Akses Internet Bagi Anak di Indonesia. JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW, 8(3), 2014–2037. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v8i3.12924
Ondřejek, P., & Horák, F. (2024). Proportionality during Times of Crisis: Precautionary Application of Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Review of Emergency Measures. European Constitutional Law Review, 20(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019624000051
Peters, A. (2021). A plea for proportionality: A reply to Yun-chien Chang and Xin Dai. International Journal of Constitutional Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab071
Rugian, I. A. (2021). Prinsip Proporsionalitas dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi Perbandingan di Indonesia dan Jerman). Jurnal Konstitusi, 18(2), 461. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1829
Silalahi, A. D. (2024). Paradox of State of Law Idea on Pancasila Philosophical Justification as Sources of Law. Jurnal Konstitusi, 21(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2114
Simamora, J., & Simatupang, L. D. (2025). Penguatan Kedudukan dan Kewenangan Konstitusional Polri sebagai Alat Negara dalam Bidang Keamanan dan Ketertiban. Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum Untuk Keadilan Dan Kesejahteraan, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v15i2.4424
Stone, A. (2020). Proportionality and Its Alternatives. Federal Law Review, 48(1), 123–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X19890448
Sunggono, B., & Harianto, A. (2009). Bantuan Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Bandung: CV. Mandar Maju.
Taqwa, M. D. (2025). Penelusuran Ide Proportionality dalam Pasal 28J(2) UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Jurnal Konstitusi, 22(3), 483–507. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2234
Umayah, D., Purnomo, E. P., Fadhlurrohman, M. I., Fathani, A. T., & Salsabila, L. (2021). The Implementation of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) Policy in Managing Oil Palm Plantation in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 943(1), 012022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/943/1/012022
Vyhnánek, L., Blechová, A., Bátrla, M., Míšek, J., Novotná, T., Reichman, A., & Harašta, J. (2024). The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations. German Law Journal, 25(3), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.96
Walpola, S. (2017). The Development of the High Court’s Willingness to Overrule Common Law Precedent. Federal Law Review, 45(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X1704500206
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 Harianto, Rizki Tri Anugrah Bhakti*, Dwi Afni Maileni, Indra Sakti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Electronic Journal of Education, Social Economics and Technology (eJESET)
ISSN 2723-6250 (Online)
Published by the SAINTIS Publishing
Homepage: http://ejeset.saintispub.com
Editor E-mail : ; editor.ejeset@gmail.com
Editorial Office Address:
