ENSURING LEGAL CERTAINTY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL JUDGMENTS AGAINST REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS: ASSET SEIZURE AND CONTINGENCY EXPENDITURE

This study examines the problem of legal certainty in the execution of civil judgments against regional governments in Indonesia. Although court judgments that have attained final and binding force (inkracht van gewijsde) possess executorial authority, their enforcement is frequently impeded by the statutory prohibition on the seizure of state and regional assets, as stipulated in Article 50 of Law Number 1 of 2004 on State Treasury. The inability to impose executorial seizure often results in delays in the fulfillment of the prevailing party’s rights and undermines public confidence in the judicial system. Employing a normative juridical research method, this study analyzes two principal enforcement mechanisms: the possibility of executing seizure over regional government assets and the utilization of contingency expenditure (Belanja Tidak Terduga/BTT) within the regional budget. The findings indicate that the seizure of regional assets is legally permissible on a case-by-case basis, particularly with respect to assets that do not serve essential public functions or originate from unlawful land occupation. In addition, the use of contingency expenditure may be legally justified to satisfy court-imposed monetary obligations classified as urgent needs, especially to prevent greater state losses resulting from the accumulation of interest. This study recommends the establishment of a clearer and more explicit regulatory framework to ensure legal certainty regarding the timeframe and effectiveness of judgment execution by regional governments.