The Execution of the Administrative Court’s Decision; Looking for Its Justice and Legal Certainty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26555/novelty.v10i1.a12704Keywords:
Execution, Administrative Court’s Decisions, Legal CertaintyAbstract
Introduction to The Problem: The execution of the Administrative Court’s decisions seems floating, and there is no final settlement. The implementation of the decision of the State Administrative judge is entirely left to the awareness of the administration official or institution. The problem is that the officials are lack of awareness due to the less supervision by a higher institution like the House of Representatives.
Purpose/Objective Study: This article aims to find out the execution to carry out the Administrative court and Administrative court decisions that can provide a sense of justice and legal certainty to the public.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The study in this article uses a doctrinal approach with secondary data sourced from books and journals, and is presented using a qualitative method.
Findings: The study showed that the execution of the court’s decision only emphasizes the sense of self-respect and legal awareness of the Administrative officials and there has been no application of forced efforts against Administrative officials if they do not implement it. Administrative actions must be following the principles of a legal constitution dominated by the norms of public policy to prevent acts of abuse of authority from higher powers.
References
Basah, S. (1997). Eksistensi dan Tolok Ukur Badan Peradilan Administrasi di Indonesia. Bandung: Alumni.
Boneka, P. N. (2014). Tinjauan Hukum Putusan PTUN dalam Rangka Eksekusi Putusan yang Telah Memperoleh Kekuatan Hukum Tetap. Lex Administratum, II(2), 141–150.
Djais, M. (2000). Pikiran Dasar Hukum Eksekusi. Semarang: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Diponegoro.
Gherghină, C. A. (2016). Normative Administrative Act. Revue Des Sciences Politiques, (51), 120–130.
Guslan, O. F. (2018). Tinjauan Yuridis Mengenai Batasan Antara Perbuatan Maladministrasi Dengan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. JCH (Jurnal Cendekia Hukum), 4(1), 9.
Gusman, D. (2010). Efektifitas Pelaksanaan Upaya Paksa Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Yang Telah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 39(3), 221–230.
Hadjon, P. M. (2011). Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Gadjahmada University Press.
Hartana, S. (2016). Pelaksanaan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Mengenai Ganti Rugi Dalam Sengketa Kepegawaian (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor : 01/G/Tun/1995/ PTUN.Smg). Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang.
Kusmawardi, L., Suteki, S., & Ristyawati, A. (2018). Penerapan Sanksi Administratif Dalam Putusan Perkara Tata Usaha Negara Di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Semarang. Law Reform, 14(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v14i1.20240
Lubna. (2015). Efforts To Force the Implementation of the Court Ruling the Country in Providing Legal Protection To the Community. Jurnal IUS: Kajian Hukum Dan Keadilan, 3(7).
Neno, V. Y. (2006). Implikasi Pembatasan Kompetensi Absolut Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jakarta: Citra Aditya Bhakti.
Putrijanti, A. (2013). Prinsip Hakim Aktif (Domini Litis Principle) Dalam Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 42(3), 320–328.
Putrijanti, A., Leonard, L. T., & Utama, K. W. (2016). Model Fungsi Pengawasan Oleh PTUN Sebagai Upaya Menuju Tata Kelola Pemerintahan yang Baik. Mimbar Hukum, 29(2), 263–275.
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2011). Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan singkat. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
Soetami, S. A. (2009). Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Bandung: Refika Aditama.
Soleh, M. A. (2018). Eksekusi Terhadap Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara yang Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap. Mimbar Keadilan Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 18–46.
Susanto, S. N. H. (2015). Merekonstruksi Sistem Hukum Administrasi Menuju Hukum yang Melayani. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Vol. 44, p. 224.
Utama, Y. J. (2010). Membangun Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara yang Berwibawa. Semarang.
