However, in order to maintain legal clarity and avoid shallow populism, we must be able to rigidly distinguish the hierarchy of administrative errors. We need to separate between minor administrative errors that are technical-clerical, serious errors that injure service procedures, to serious maladministration (gross administrative misconduct) that consciously violates constitutional rights or abuses authority in an extreme way. It is important to emphasize that official discretion is still protected by law as a space for service innovation (freies ermessen). The legal problem arises not when an official takes discretion, but when the discretion deviates from the original purpose of granting authority (détournement de pouvoir). Discretion is a tool to achieve benefit, but it should not be a shield to legalize arbitrariness. Minor errors may be resolved with administrative improvements, but serious maladministration must be positioned as a crime of power that cannot only be redeemed with an apology.

Reformulation of Sanctions against Serious Maladministration

Therefore, it is time for us to radically redefine the governance of power. We must begin to view maladministration as an administrative crime of office that has a degree of danger equivalent to corruption. This transformation requires a paradigm shift from persuasive supervision to coercive supervision. Recommendations from the Ombudsman should no longer end up in the archive table. There must be a legal mechanism that automatically connects non-compliance with recommendations with severe administrative sanctions, including removal from office or disqualification from public office in the future. We need to implement "Sanctions of Shame" or institutional shame sanctions, where agencies that continuously commit maladministration are given a red label publicly. Of course, this mechanism must still be subject to due process of law, strict proof of negligence through independent audits, and full transparency to avoid new abuses of authority within the supervisory institution itself.

Furthermore, our biggest challenge is to tear down the walls of "blind loyalty" within the bureaucracy. Legal certainty can only be achieved if procedures are carried out with moral integrity. Often, maladministration occurs because subordinates are afraid to question orders from superiors that clearly violate procedures. This is exacerbated by the neglect of living law that develops in society. The Constitutional Court in several of its decisions, implicitly began to place the right to good public services as part of the fulfillment of human rights. Therefore, the protection of whistleblowers within the bureaucracy who dare to report administrative crimes must be strengthened by law. We need bureaucrats who are more afraid of the law than afraid of the anger of their superiors. The collective awareness that public service is a sacred trust must be re-instilled since official education. Without this moral transformation, no matter how great the regulations are, they will only become beautiful paper tigers that have no fangs to bite deviations.

Compliance with PTUN Decisions as a Test of the Rule of Law

The discourse on "Shameless State" must also touch on the role of administrative justice which has so far felt isolated. So far, the State Administrative Court (PTUN) has been more focused on canceling decisions (beschikking) than providing full restoration of citizens' rights. If a citizen wins a lawsuit in the PTUN, he often only gets a victory on paper because the execution of the decision is very dependent on the "good faith" of the official concerned. Asshiddiqie (2010: 58) states that the dignity of the law of a country is at stake in how its court decisions are respected. Executive non-compliance with the judiciary in administrative matters is a form of the highest level crime of power a constitutional rebellion that injures the principle of separation of powers and destroys legal authority in the eyes of the public. When court decisions are ignored by the authorities, then the law is actually declared dead by the state itself.

Restoring Shame in Public Service

As an offer of original ideas that are progressive but still based on sound legal principles, Indonesia needs the establishment of a "Public Service Court" or at least the strengthening of a special chamber in the Supreme Court that specifically handles lawsuits for compensation from citizens due to serious maladministration. This compensation should not only be borne by the state, but must also be jointly and severally borne by the personal assets of officials who are proven to have committed crimes of power intentionally or due to gross negligence. With the existence of personal financial risks that are proportional to the level of error, officials will have a strong incentive to comply with procedures. Of course, this policy must be limited only to cases where there is strong evidence of abuse of authority or intentional disregard of procedures that are already clear. This is the most effective way to restore "shame" to the heart of our bureaucracy. There is no more room for inefficiency that is deliberately maintained on the suffering of the people.

In closing this reflection, we must realize that a great nation is not measured by the magnificence of its physical infrastructure alone, but by how dignified it serves its simplest citizens. Maladministration that is continuously maintained is a poison that slowly but surely will paralyze our democracy. We must no longer allow this country to be managed by the mentality of "as long as it's done" by ignoring the procedural rights of citizens. The law must be present not only to punish petty thieves, but also to discipline negligent rulers. A state that tolerates maladministration is not actually failing to serve, but is the most silent form of constitutional denial.