Fair, Just Law Enforcement: Govt's Massive Crackdown on Forestry Violations Keeps within Legal Bounds
Ferdian Andi
(Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Sharia and Law, UIN Jakarta)
The first 18 months of President Prabowo Subianto's administration have been characterized by a highly dynamic legal landscape, most notably marked by the establishment of the Forestry Task Force (Satgas PKH). Set up through Presidential Regulation 5/2025, the task force is tasked with the critical missions of collecting administrative fines, reclaiming forest areas and recovering state assets. The issuance of this regulation was designed to make existing frameworks more effective, specifically reinforcing the legal norms found in Article 110A&B of Law 6/2023 (Job Creation Law) and Government Regulation 45/2025.
Since its inception in February 2025, Satgas PKH has demonstrated significant quantitative success in the collection of administrative fines. By May, the Task Force had secured a total of Rp41.57 trillion. This impressive figure, which includes an accumulation of administrative fines, property taxes (PBB) and non-property taxes, was reached through steady monthly gains: Rp13.25 trillion in October 2025, Rp6.62 trillion in December 2025, Rp11.42 trillion in April, and Rp10.27 trillion in May. These results underscore the effectiveness of the administration's focus on non-tax state revenue within the forestry sector.
This fiscal success is rooted in a fundamental shift in law enforcement strategy, codified by the Job Creation Law. By deregulating various norms and expanding the use of state administrative instruments—such as administrative sanctions, government coercion, and permit revocation—the law moves away from a purely punitive approach. Under this new paradigm, criminal law is positioned as the ultimum remedium, or the tool of last resort. Satgas PKH serves as the primary vehicle for this administrative enforcement, prioritizing economic recovery and regulatory compliance over criminal prosecution.
However, these legal policy choices bring both advantages and present challenges. While the Task Force’s efficiency in revenue collection is noteworthy, the administration faces the ongoing task of balancing aggressive enforcement with the principles of the rule of law. As the Government continues to pursue these administrative fines, it remains vital to uphold a commitment to fair and transparent enforcement, ensuring that the drive for state revenue does not compromise the integrity of the legal system or the rights of stakeholders within forest areas.
Legal system improvement
The legal sector stands as a cornerstone of President Prabowo Subianto's administration, as evidenced by its prominent placement within the Asta Cita (eight-point priority programs). By prioritizing political, legal, and bureaucratic reform, the administration has signaled a commitment to addressing systemic issues. To evaluate these efforts, one can apply the framework of American law professor and historian Lawrence M. Friedman, which identifies three essential pillars of any legal system: legal substance (rules and regulations), legal structure (institutions and apparatus), and legal culture (public attitudes and institutional values).
Under a Prabowo administration, several fundamental measures underscore a clear commitment to judicial reform. A cornerstone of this effort is Government Regulation 42/2025, which increases judges' salaries by up to 280 percent—with new scales ranging from Rp46.7 million to Rp110.5 million. This financial adjustment is more than a payroll update; it is a strategic gateway to systemic change. By strengthening the rule of law and professionalizing the legal apparatus, the administration aims to foster a legal culture where the judiciary serves as an inclusive forum for all citizens seeking justice. As prominent legal scholar Neil Gold noted in Judicial Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean (1995), a robust judicial sector is a primary driver of broader government reform. By removing legal bottlenecks, these improvements will catalyze a domino effect, fortifying governance across both the economic and social sectors.
However, it should be noted that this financial adjustment is merely an entry point for a more holistic reform strategy. For the judiciary to truly transform, salary increases must be paired with substantive legal foundations, such as the Judicial Office Law. This legislation is critical to fulfilling the mandate of Article 24(1) of the 1945 Constitution, ensuring an independent judiciary, one capable of upholding justice without external interference. Achieving this requires a unified commitment from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, to move beyond fiscal incentives toward a culture of institutional integrity.
Parallel to judicial reform, the administration has addressed public dissatisfaction with law enforcement, through the National Police Reform Acceleration Commission (KPRP). Formed in August 2025 and led by former Constitutional Court Justice Jimly Asshiddiqie, the commission’s recommendations—released in May—provide a roadmap for a more professional police force. Key proposals include strengthening the National Police Commission (Kompolnas) as an external watchdog, amending Law 2/2002 (National Police Law), and implementing the 2029 Blueprint for a transformative and accountable National Police institution.
Ultimately, the success of these initiatives depends on sustained political will and the translation of recommendations into concrete action. The goal is to move away from reactive law enforcement—typified by the public's "No Viral, No Justice" sentiment—toward a system that is inherently stable, transparent and proactive. By integrating structural changes like salary hikes and commission blueprints with substantive legislative updates, the administration seeks to build a legal system that is both professional in its conduct and just in its outcomes.
Systemic improvements in law enforcement agencies require steadfastness, resilience, and a strong commitment amid significant challenges. To be effective, these improvements must be anchored in the establishment of a robust system that prioritizes meaningful public participation. In this framework, public comments, criticisms, and annotations regarding the performance of law enforcement should not be dismissed; rather, they must be viewed as an integral part of the efforts to reform the legal sector. Within a presidential system, a president plays a strategic role in orchestrating these changes, ensuring that systemic improvements stem from the rule of law, enhance the quality of the law enforcement apparatus, and foster a strong legal culture, one where institutions are seen as essential for realizing equality before the law.
These structural shifts must be accompanied by comprehensive improvements in bureaucratic governance, which serves as the backbone of an administration. With a workforce of 5.3 million state civil apparatus (ASN) members as of September 2025, a large-scale reorganization is vital to achieving good governance. The administration must treat the bureaucracy as a "showcase" for its public service function, utilizing the spirit of Law 20/2023 to foster a professional and integrity-based ASN. Creating a clean, accountable, and transparent government requires that every action be based on the principle of legality and guided by the General Principles of Good Governance (AAUPB), providing clear corridors for the discretionary authority held by government administrators.
The integrity and morality of an administration are crucial capital for law enforcement, particularly as the Prabowo administration moves toward prioritizing administrative law enforcement over criminal law. This strategic choice impacts the effectiveness and speed of remediation efforts regarding the impacts caused by private entities, utilizing administrative instruments to restore state interests. However, this shift requires the Government to remain firmly committed to the principles of a state based on the rule of law. Every government action must not only comply with the law but also ensure a high degree of citizen protection, ensuring that the pursuit of administrative efficiency never undermines fundamental legal rights.
Expedited administrative fine process
The implementation of administrative fines by Satgas PKH over the past 18 months exemplifies a law enforcement model rooted in State Administrative Law (HAN). This approach is deeply intertwined with the "welfare state" concept, wherein the state is mandated to enhance community well-being through active administration. In this framework, government agencies exercise both binding authority—dictated by written regulations—and discretionary authority, which remains bounded by the AAUPB.
According to criminal justice analyst Daniel Ohana, administrative law enforcement is distinguished from criminal law by several key characteristics. Compliance is managed directly by administrative authorities, and the burden of proof does not always require the rigorous procedures of a criminal trial. Furthermore, requirements to prove guilt are often relaxed, and sanctions—most commonly administrative fines—exclude detention and do not result in a criminal record. Other measures, such as the confiscation of goods, revocation of permits or debarment from government tenders, provide officials with a versatile toolkit to ensure regulatory compliance.
This model offers significant flexibility, compared to the rigid nature of criminal sanctions. As Ohana suggests, administrators can employ a graduated response involving warning letters, conditional orders or negotiated agreements. Drawing on the theory of James Paul Goldschmidt—a German jurist who made important contributions to German criminal law and criminal procedure law—these sanctions act as a form of "administrative coercion" designed to discipline society into facilitating the state’s pursuit of public welfare. Similarly, University of Toronto professor of law Alan Brudner’s "paradigm of welfare" posits that the success of administrative sanctions should be measured by their effectiveness in achieving public policy goals, rather than their inherent moral appropriateness. Practically, this shifts the workload of fact-finding from judicial institutions to administrative officials, allowing for sanctions that are closely aligned with specific government objectives.
The Prabowo administration's reliance on administrative fines finds strong theoretical support in these concepts. Official government releases indicate that the tens of trillions of Rupiah collected are deposited into the state treasury to be utilized for public benefit, directly reflecting the welfare state mission. This orchestration of government administration seeks to balance the punitive nature of fines for past infractions with a prospective goal: fostering future compliance and building trust between the state and private legal entities. Ultimately, the long-term success of this policy will be judged by whether these significant financial collections translate into a more compliant and stable relationship between the Government and the private sector.
Potential risks
The effectiveness of administrative fines is, at least on paper, far superior to that of criminal law enforcement. Criminal proceedings are notoriously time-consuming and place a significant burden on the judiciary, often delaying resolution for years. In contrast, administrative fines offer a reparative dimension, focusing on the immediate restoration of environmental justice. This approach ensures lower costs and greater agility, compared to the criminal justice system. Maskun et al. (2025), in their research titled "The Dilemma of Administrative Sanctions in Legalizing Palm Oil Plantations in Indonesian Forest Areas," further highlight that criminal enforcement faces serious hurdles. These include lengthy appeals, ongoing environmental degradation during litigation, and the immense difficulty of proving corporate responsibility or scientific damage in a courtroom setting.
However, these advantages are accompanied by equally serious challenges that must be anticipated, to prevent new systemic problems. In practice, the application of administrative fines can be undermined by legal loopholes, where sanctions risk becoming a "back door" for entities seeking to avoid criminal liability for severe environmental damage. There is also the risk of "disproportionate leniency," where fines are set so low that they fail to offset the profit gained from environmental destruction. Such a scenario leads to low compliance, as civil entities may find it more cost-effective to continue violating the law and simply treat the occasional fine as a business expense.
A further complication arises from the blurring of the boundaries between criminal and administrative law. As noted by University of Groningen professor of empirical legal studies Albertjan Tollenaar (2018) in "Repressive Administrative Law: Assessing Culpability in Dutch Social Security Regulation," administrative sanctions are now often significantly higher than criminal penalties, yet they lack the same procedural safeguards. Tollenaar argues that fundamental doctrines, such as nulla poena sine culpa (no punishment without fault), must be strictly maintained, even within administrative enforcement. His findings in the Netherlands reveal a high rate of error, with courts reducing 38 percent of administrative calculations, as they discern inaccuracies. This suggests that administrative authorities may struggle to accurately measure culpability when compared to the rigors of judicial scrutiny.
Finally, the success of administrative enforcement is often hampered by a capacity gap between central and local institutions. National-level agencies tend to be far more accurate, with 88 percent of their decisions upheld, whereas local institutions see only 52 percent of their decisions survive judicial review. This disparity, combined with a potential lack of bureaucratic knowledge among citizens, creates a risk of unfair fines being imposed without the protection of an appeal. Ultimately, while Satgas PKH provides a streamlined path for state recovery, the judiciary remains essential in validating these calculations and ensuring that the drive for efficiency does not compromise the principles of justice and citizen protection.
Outlook on administrative law enforcement
The Prabowo administration is increasingly pivoting toward administrative fines as the primary mechanism for economic and natural resource law enforcement. The notable success of Satgas PKH in collecting tens of trillions of Rupiah and repossessing forest areas marks a significant leap in this model, representing a fundamental shift in law enforcement philosophy. By moving away from the punitive nature of criminal law toward a recovery-oriented approach, the administration is prioritizing asset recovery and the restitution of state losses as its central legal objectives.
Theoretically, this shift aligns with the welfare state concept, where governance is measured by its ability to proactively realize public well-being. By utilizing administrative instruments, the state adopts a faster, more flexible and more economical method of ensuring compliance, compared to the traditional, often encumbered judiciary. In this context, administrative fines transcend mere punishment; they become sophisticated governance instruments designed to control corporate and environmental behavior. Satgas PKH essentially functions as an agent of restructuring, transforming legal violations into opportunities for direct state revenue and natural resource management reform.
However, this transition presents its own profound challenge: the risk of the state transforming into an expansive administrative body where the executive branch wields unchecked authority. In such a scenario, the regulator acts as the rule-maker, supervisor, examiner, collector and punisher—all within a single branch of government. This centralization of power, if left without robust oversight, creates a significant opening for abuse. To mitigate this, the Prabowo administration must ensure that administrative fines do not normalize violations through payment, but rather remain firmly rooted in environmental restoration and the core duty of protecting citizens from arbitrary state actions.
Furthermore, the Government must address the inherent weakness of citizen protections in administrative regimes, compared to criminal ones. While criminal law is guarded by the presumption of innocence and strict judicial independence, administrative officials often possess broad discretion that can lead to repressive outcomes. To prevent this, it is essential to strengthen due process through transparent fine calculations, effective objection mechanisms, and rigorous judicial oversight via the State Administrative Court (PTUN). Upholding the principles of proportionality and prohibiting conflicts of interest will be vital to maintaining the legitimacy of this enforcement model.
Finally, the administration must ensure that the spirit of asset recovery extends beyond mere fiscal collection. Substantial environmental restoration involves restoring the public functions and ecological balance harmed by legal violations. Ideally, the funds generated through these fines should be explicitly channeled into environmental rehabilitation, the empowerment of affected local communities, and the strengthening of forest oversight. By focusing on these sustainable and substantial outcomes, the Government can ensure that administrative law enforcement serves its true purpose: fostering public welfare and upholding the rule of law, rather than simply acting as a mechanism for state revenue.
To ensure the long-term success of these legal reforms, the Prabowo administration must prioritize data integration and digital-based governance within the administrative enforcement framework. Managing tens of trillions of Rupiah in administrative fines necessitates a robust database, precise auditing capabilities, and a transparent digital oversight system. Without a sound digital foundation, even the most well-intentioned efforts risk creating systemic inefficiencies or future legal complications.
Furthermore, the Government must actively strengthen the social legitimacy of its administrative fine policy. For this model to be sustainable, the public must perceive administrative enforcement as a genuine instrument of justice rather than a mere revenue-collection tool for the state. Transparency regarding the allocation and utilization of these funds is therefore paramount. Citizens need to see clear evidence of how these fines benefit the community, whether through environmental rehabilitation or improved public services, aligning the policy with the welfare state concept and state administrative law principles.
Ultimately, the trajectory of administrative law enforcement in the Prabowo era will define the future of the rule of law in Indonesia. If managed with high accountability, administrative fines can serve as an effective instrument for asset recovery, the restitution of state losses, and the modernization of natural resource governance. However, without stringent oversight, this mechanism could inadvertently foster new legal grievances or an environment of “institutional overreach”. The administration’s ultimate success will not be measured solely by the magnitude of the funds collected, but by its ability to keep these powerful administrative instruments within the bounds of a democratic rule of law.
(This article was published in Independent Observer on Friday, (22/5/2026). Photo: Pesta Babi.