In the realm of the administrative law, the relationship between the government (State Administrative Body/Official or Pejabat TUN) and the public is governed by ethical and legal standards known as the General Principles of Good Governance (known in Indonesian as Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik or “AAUPB”) This is formally regulated under Law No. 30/2014 on Government Administration, as amended by Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2/2022 on Job Creation, which was subsequently enacted as Law No. 6/2023 on Job Creation. Article 10 of Law No.30/2014 defines AAUPB as the principles used as a reference for the government officials in issuing decisions and actions, which covers the principles legal certainty, benefits, impartiality, accuracy, not abusing authorities, transparency, public interest, and good services. These principles serve as a fundamental guideline to ensure that government actions are transparent, fair, and accountable, preventing the abuse of power against citizens. A common, yet frustrating issue faced by the public or businesses is administrative silence where there is a scenario where an application for a permit, decree, or decision is submitted, but the government official does not respond or issue the requested decision, leaving the applicant in a state of legal limbo.
Many assume that if the government fails to issue a decision, they must simply wait indefinitely for fear of jeopardizing their application—a concern substantiated by a data from the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia, which consistently ranks ‘undue delay’ (penundaan berlarut) as the top form of maladministration in 2025.[1] . However, under the principles of AAUPB, indefinite silence is not acceptable, especially when the applicant has diligently fulfilled all their obligations. The law recognizes that a failure to act can be just as damaging as a wrongful action. This is explicitly addressed in Article 53 of Law No.30/2014. However, Article 175 paragraph 7 number (2) of Law No.6/2023 updated this article to speed up the process. Now, if the law does not specify a timeline, the government only has 5 (five) working days to act after receiving a complete application.
If the government fails to respond within this time limit, the request is legally deemed approved. Under the new regulations, this approval should be generated automatically through the government’s electronic system (such as the OSS system). The core question arises: If an applicant has met all the substantive requirements and procedural formalities mandated by law, can the government official refuse to issue the decision or simply ignore the request without justification? The answer lies in the legal concept of “arbitrary action” (tindakan sewenang-wenang) According to Article 18 paragraph (3) of Law No.30/2014, an action is defined as arbitrary if it is taken without valid authority or constitutes a decision that is contrary to a court decision with permanent legal force. When officials withhold a decision despite full compliance by the applicant, they are no longer exercising valid discretion; they are acting outside the bounds of their authority.
To effectively address the pervasive issue of administrative inaction, we must turn to established jurisprudence that sets the standard for government conduct. Specifically, the Supreme Court Decision No. 316 K/TUN/1998 of 3 May 2001 provides a definitive and binding legal stance on this matter. The decision explicitly establishes that if a State Administrative Body or Official (Pejabat TUN) fails to issue a requested decision, even though the applicant has meticulously fulfilled all substantive conditions and procedural requirements, the inaction is not merely an oversight—it is legally classified as an arbitrary action. This ruling emphasizes that administrative authority is not absolute or immune to challenge. When the statutory conditions for a permit or decision are fully met by the applicant, the official acts outside the bounds of Good Governance if they withhold the issuance of said decision without valid legal grounds, effectively transforming a public service duty into an obstruction of rights.
Conclusion:
Supreme Court Decision No. 316 K/TUN/1998 clearly establishes that the government cannot simply ignore an applicant who has fulfilled all legal requirements. Under AAUPB, once it has complied with the procedure, the official is obligated to act. Failure to issue the decision is not just a delay; it is an arbitrary act. Under the new law (Law No.6/2023), the electronic system should automatically issue the permit to ensure certainty. However, if officials obstruct this process without valid grounds, their actions remain subject to legal challenges in the State Administrative Court.
[1] Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, “Jumlah Laporan Masyarakat ke Ombudsman RI Meningkat,” January 22, 2025, accessed January 27, 2026, https://ombudsman.go.id/pers/r/jumlah-laporan-masyarakat-ke-ombudsman-ri-meningkat.
Disclaimer: This article provides a general overview of the General Principles of Good Governance (Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik or “AAUPB”) and the legal implications of administrative silence under Law No. 30/2014, which is effective at the time of writing. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should not act or rely solely on the information contained in this article without seeking appropriate professional legal counsel. Laws, regulations, and their interpretations may change over time, and their application may vary depending on specific facts and circumstances. For tailored legal advice or further clarification on the matters discussed in this article, please consult with a qualified legal professional.