Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKHadirnya Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (TUN) sebagai lembaga penegak hukumadministrasi bagi para pencari keadilan, seringkali menemui hambatan ataspelaksanaan/eksekusi putusan. Putusan yang dimaksud ialah dalam konteksputusan tersebut sudah in kracht, terhadap putusan yang sudah in kracht tersebutPejabat TUN selaku pihak yang kalah seringkali tidak mau mematuhi isi putusandari para hakim PTUN. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatifdengan menggunakan data sekunder. Terhadap faktor-faktor tidakdilaksanakannya putusan TUN disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor diantaranyaseperti belum adanya pengaturan pelaksanaan terkait uang paksa, penggunaanmedia massa sebagai upaya pejabat TUN jera ternyata tidak mudah dijangkau olehpenggugat, eksekusi hierarkis yang sering tidak ditindaklanjuti, serta dapatdisimpulkan sekalipun terdapat berbagai macam upaya paksa ternyata letakmartabat dan daya eksekusi putusan TUN sendiri berada pada kesadaran/selfrespect dari pejabat TUN. Adapun perbuatan tidak patuh terhadap isi putusanTUN tersebut dapat masuk kedalam unsur perbuatan Contempt of Court yangdisebutkan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 jo Undang-UndangNomor 5 Tahun 2004 tentang Mahkamah Agung. Adapun jenis perbuatankonstitutif ketidak patuhan pejabat TUN masuk kedalam bentuk penentanganterhadap perintah pengadilan secara terbuka atau disebut Obstruction of Justice.Hal tersebut dapat berimplikasi terhadap kemungkinan kriminalisasi Pejabat TUNsesuai Pasal 216 KUHP atas konsekuensi perbuatan tidak patuh tersebut.

---

ABSTRACTThe presence of the State Administrative Court (TUN) as an administrative lawenforcement agency for justice seekers, often faces obstacles to theimplementation / execution of decisions. The verdict in question is in the contextof the verdict already in kracht, against the verdict that is already in kracht TUNofficials as the losing party often do not want to comply with the contents of thedecisions of the PTUN judges. This type of research is normative legal researchusing secondary data. The factors that the implementation of the TUN verdictwere not caused by several factors such as the lack of implementationarrangements related to forced money, the use of mass media as a deterrent fromTUN officials was apparently not easy to reach by the plaintiff, hierarchicalexecutions were often not followed up, and it could be concluded even thoughthere were various the kind of forced effort turns out that the location of thedignity and power of execution of the TUN decision itself is in the awareness /self respect of the TUN official. The act of not complying with the contents of theTUN decision can be included in the Contempt of Court element of actionmentioned in Act Number 14 of 1985 jo Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning theSupreme Court. The type of constitutive act of disobedience of TUN officials goesinto the form of open opposition to court orders or called Obstruction of Justice.This can have implications for the possibility of criminalization of TUN Officialsin accordance with Article 216 of the Criminal Code for the consequences of suchnon-compliance."

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang perbandingan pengaturan konsep Contempt of Court dalam perundang-undangan di kedua negara. Hal ini dikaitkan dengan perilaku profesi hukum dalam menjalankan profesinya yang dibatasi oleh suatu kode etik profesi. Secara tidak langsung, kode etik profesi ini bertujuan untuk melindungi martabat peradilan dari adanya gangguan dari pihak dalam perkara di pengadilan maupun pihak luar. Dalam praktek, advokat merupakan profesi hukum yang sering melakukan tindakan melanggar tata tertib pengadilan, seperti meninggalkan ruang sidang atau menginterupsi keputusan hakim. Perilaku tersebut dapat dikategorikan sebagai Contempt of Court. Konsep Contempt of Court dalam KUHP Indonesia tidak diatur secara khusus melainkan tersebar dalam beberapa pasal. Sedangkan di Inggris, konsep Contempt of Court diatur dalam undang-undang tersendiri, yakni Contempt of Court Act 1981. Penulisan skripsi ini menitikberatkan pada data sekunder dengan metode pendekatan komparatif, dan data primer berupa wawancara dengan penegak hukum yang terlibat dalam studi kasus sebagai data penunjang dan pelengkap.

---

This research explains about comparison of regulation contempt of court concept in legislation of both countries. That issue is connected with conduct of law profession which is limited by a code of ethics of the profession. Indirectly, an existence of this code of ethics aimed at protecting dignity of the court from any obstruction of a party in proceeding therein or even outside party. In practically, advocate is a law profession who often break the rule of court, such as walk out from court room or interrupt judge decision. That conduct could be categorized as a contempt of court. Contempt of court concept in Indonesian Book of Penal Code isn‟t regulated in a special chapter, but it dispersed in few articles. On the contrary, contempt of court concept in England is regulated in special act, Contempt of Court Act 1981. This research is more focus in secondary sources with comparative approach methods, and primary sources in form of interview with law‟s instrument who involved in study case for supporting and complement sources of this research. "