Discretion of Public Order Agency (Satpol PP) in Enforcing Regional Regulations: A Normative Review of Conditions, Limits and Accountability
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Published
May 11, 2026
Abstract
This study aims to formulate the legal basis for the Public Order Agency (Satpol PP) discretion in enforcing regional regulations, focusing on the distinction between routine and discretionary authority, the conditions for exercising discretion, normative limits, and the legal accountability model. The study uses a normative juridical method with a statutory and conceptual approach. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials are analyzed through legal interpretation, systematic reasoning, and legal argumentation to develop operational parameters for testing discretion in the practice of enforcing regional regulations. The results show that the main problem does not lie in the existence of discretion, but rather in the absence of consistent parameters for assessing the validity, limits, and accountability of its use. The study produced six main findings, namely the classification of Satpol PP actions between routine and discretionary authority; formal and material conditions for the use of discretion; a matrix for testing the limits of discretion based on legality, general principles of good governance (AUPB), the purpose of authority and proportionality; a typology of risks of deviation; a legal accountability model; and the operational flow of discretion as a framework for institutional evaluation. The findings confirm that the Public Order Agency (Satpol PP)discretion remains legitimate within the framework of a state governed by law, provided it is based on clear authority, a documented rationale, appropriate position objectives, and verifiable accountability mechanisms. This research contributes to strengthening regional administrative law and improving governance to achieve more measurable and accountable regional regulatory enforcement. More specifically, the primary novelty of this study lies in the formulation of an operational flow of Satpol PP discretion that translates abstract principles of legality, AUPB, purpose of authority, proportionality, documentation, and correction into a sequential decision-making framework that can be applied institutionally in daily regional regulation enforcement.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hak Cipta :
Penulis yang mempublikasikan manuskripnya di jurnal ini menyetujui ketentuan berikut:
- Hak cipta pada setiap artikel adalah milik penulis.
- Penulis mengakui bahwa Ranah Research : Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development berhak menjadi yang pertama menerbitkan dengan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0) .
- Penulis dapat mengirimkan artikel secara terpisah, mengatur distribusi non-eksklusif manuskrip yang telah diterbitkan dalam jurnal ini ke versi lain (misalnya, dikirim ke repositori institusi penulis, publikasi ke dalam buku, dll.), dengan mengakui bahwa manuskrip telah diterbitkan pertama kali di Ranah Research.
References
Bellamy, R. (2017). The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers (R. Bellamy (ed.)). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315085302
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
Craig, P. (2024). Proportionability and Proportionality. In English Administrative Law from 1550 (pp. 423–448). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198908326.003.0014
de Boer, N., & Raaphorst, N. (2023). Automation and discretion: explaining the effect of automation on how street-level bureaucrats enforce. Public Management Review, 25(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1937684
Efendi, A. (2020). Interpretasi Modern Makna Menyalahgunakan Wewenang Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Yudisial, 12(3), 327. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v12i3.380
Erlyn, P., Hidayat, B., Cahyo, A., & Saksono, H. (2022). Investment in Human Resources to Increase Achievement Levels of Sustainable Development. Jurnal Bina Praja, 14(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.14.2022.135-146
Evans, T. (2020). Street-Level Bureaucrats: Discretion and Compliance in Policy Implementation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1422
Farmbry, K., & Harper, R. (2005). Institutional Legitimacy Building in a Context of Transition: The South African Land Claims Court. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00497.x
Hart, H. L. . (2013). Discretion. Harvard Law Review, 127(2), 652–665. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23742020
Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-Level Bureaucracy and Public Accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 16 Tahun 2018 tentang Satuan Polisi Pamong Praja, (2018).
Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintah, (2014).
Klijn, E. H., de Boer, N., & Eshuis, J. (2022). Leading frontline enforcers: how supervisors’ leadership style impacts inspectors’ enforcement style. Public Management Review, 24(3), 398–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1833610
Lina, L., Hidayat, R., & Chandrawati, T. (2023). Kinerja Satpol PP dalam Tugas dan Fungsi Sebagai Penegak Peraturan Daerah di Kabupaten Tana Tidung. NeoRespublica : Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 4(2), 520–528. https://doi.org/10.52423/neoresjurnal.v4i2.98
Negara, T. A. S. (2023). Normative Legal Research in Indonesia: Its Originis and Approaches. Audito Comparative Law Journal (ACLJ), 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.22219/aclj.v4i1.24855
Pratiwi, C. S., Yulita, C., Fauzi, F., & Purnamawati, S. A. (2016). Penjelasan Hukum Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan Yang Baik (AUPB). https://leip.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Penjelasan-Hukum-Asas-Asas-Umum-Pemerintahan-yang-Baik-Hukum-Administrasi-Negara.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Putra, H. O. A., Taifur, W. D., Games, D., & Handra, H. (2023). The Effect of Sense of Place Towards Social Capital on Millennials in A Semi-Urban City (A Case Study in Padang, West Sumatera - Indonesia). Ilomata International Journal of Social Science, 4(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.52728/ijss.v4i2.724
Qindi, A. E. Al. (2024). Implementasi Wewenang Satuan Polisi Pamong Praja (Satpol PP) dalam Penegakan Peraturan Daerah di Surabaya. JISP (Jurnal Inovasi Sektor Publik), 4(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.38156/jisp.v4i1.230
Rizkyta, A. P., & Ningsih, B. R. (2022). Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Berdasarkan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Esensi Hukum, 4(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35586/esensihukum.v4i2.161
Suparto, S., Adinda, F. A., Esanov, A. E., & Normurotovna, Z. E. (2024). Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 4(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189
Ughude, V. N. (2015). Tugas dan Wewenang Polisi Pamong Praja dalam Penegakan Hukum. Lex Et Societas, 3(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35796/les.v3i3.7919
Vinopal, K. (2020). Socioeconomic Representation: Expanding the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz024
Widhi Antoro, B. H. (2021). Pengujian Penyalahgunaan Wewenang di PTUN. Jurnal Yudisial, 13(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v13i2.350
Yu, L. (2009). Judicial review on abuse of power by administrative authority. Frontiers of Law in China, 4(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11463-009-0004-5
Zhang, H., Yang, L., Walker, R., & Wang, Y. (2022). How to influence the professional discretion of street-level bureaucrats: transformational leadership, organizational learning, and professionalization strategies in the delivery of social assistance. Public Management Review, 24(2), 208–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1805919