<![CDATA[ABSTRAKKewenangan mengadili Peradilan TUN, berdasarkan pasal 47 Undang-Undang Nomor : 5 Tahun 1986, Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara adalah bertugas dan berwenang, memeriksa, memutus dan menyelesaikan sengketa tata usaha negara sedangkan sengketa kepegawaian berdasarkan pasal 1 angka 10 Undang-Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha termasuk dalam sengketa tata usaha negara. Pelaksanaan putusan (eksekusi) pengadilan yang berkekuiatan hukum tetap (inkraacht van gewijsde) secara sukarela oleh Tergugat merupakan tahap akhir dari penyelesaian sengketa kepegawaian. Lemahnya pengaturan pelaksanaan putusan dalam pasal 116 Undang-Undang Peradilan TUN menjadi salah satu faktor Tergugat tidak melaksanakan putusan pengadilan. Penulisan ini memakai metode penelitian yuridis normatif, berupa pendekatan kasus (in concreto) hasil yang dicapai berupa gambaran yang seharusnya dilakukan berdasarkan hukum. Analisis data dengan metode deduktif dengan pendekatan analisis yuridis deskriptif, data diperoleh melalui penelitian lapangan (field research) dan penlitian kepustakaan (library research) terdiri atas bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier. Faktor-faktor baik yuridis maupun tekhnis yang meneybabkan Tergugat tidak melaksanakan putusan Kasasi Nomor : 531.K /TUN/2013, pada PTUN Pontianak yaitu : kurang maksimalnya aturan mengenai penerapan sanksi administrasi dan uang paksa (dwangsom), sulitnya rehabilitasi penggugat kepada kedudukan semula, sikap arogansi tergugat sebagai pejabat publik untuk tidak mengakui kesalahan serta kurang efektifnya pengawasan terhadap tindakan pemerintah. Mengingatkan tergugat agar melaksanakan kewajiban hukum dan ditindak lanjuti dengan publisitas, serta upaya melalui jalur pengadilan (litigasi) baik berupa gugatan Perdata, Pidana maupun diluar pengadilan (non litigasi) diharapkan menjadi tekanan/solusi bagi tergugat untuk mentaati putusan Pengadilan TUN yang berkekuatan hukum tetap.Kata-kata Kunci : PTUN, Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap, Pelaksanaan PutusanABSTRACTThe authority to hear Administrative Court based on article 47 Of Regulation Number : 5 Year 1986, On the State Administrative Court is the duty and authority, examine, decide and resolve disputes state administration, while disputes personnel under section 1 point 10 of the Law On Judicial Procedure businesses including in state administrative disputes. The verdict execution of the Administrative Court and binding (inkraacht van gewijsde) voluntarily by the defendant is the final stage of the settlement of employment disputes. Weak enforcement of regulation in article 116 Of Regulation Administrative Court be one factor defendant did not implement the court ruling. Writing is wearing a normative juridical research methods, such as case approach (in concreto) the results achieved in the form of a picture is supposed to do under the law. Analysis of the date by deductive approach juridical descriptive analysis, the date obtained through field research and library research consists of primary legal materials, secondary and tertiary. Factors that both juridical and technical course of causing the defendant did not carry out the verdict of Kasasi Number : 531.K / TUN / 2013, the Administrative Court Pontianak namely: less maximum rules regarding the application of administrative sanctions, forced money (dwangsom), the difficulty of rehabilitation of the plaintiff to its original position, the arrogance of the defendant as public officials not to admit mistakes and a lack of effective oversight of government action. Reminding the defendant in order to carry out legal obligations and followed up with publicity, as well as efforts through the court (litigation) in the form of a lawsuit in Civil, Criminal and outside the court (non litigation) expected to be a pressure or asolutions for the defendant to comply with the decision of the administrative court and binding.Keywords: Administrative Court, Is Legally Binding, The Verdict Execution]]>
Copyrights © 2015
