Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Peradilan tata usaha negara bertujuan untuk memberikan kepastian hukum dan perlindungan kepada warga negara yang ingin mencari keadilan di bidang tata usaha negara. Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara hanya dapat dilaksanakan apabila telah memperoleh kekuatan hukum tetap. Adanya hambatan dan permasalahan dalam pelaksanaan putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap menjadi suatu tantangan apabila dihadapkan dengan tujuan diadakannya suatu peradilan yaitu adanya suatu kepastian hukum, perlindungan hukum dan keadilan bagi para pencari keadilan. Putusan PTUN yang tidak dilaksanakan dapat disebabkan oleh beberapa masalah dalam penerapannya, yaitu masalah eksekusi melalui mekanisme pencabutan keputusan TUN yang bersangkutan, masalah eksekusi melalui mekanisme pembayaran uang paksa, masalah eksekusi melalui mekanisme sanksi administratif, masalah eksekusi melalui pengumuman pada media massa, dan masalah eksekusi melalui pemberitahuan kepada presiden. Berdasarkan analisis yang dilakukan dalam penulisan ini, disimpulkan bahwa terdapat beberapa faktor yang berpengaruh dalam eksekusi putusan PTUN, yaitu ketiadaan peraturan pelaksanaan dalam penerapan sanksi pembayaran uang paksa dan sanksi administratif, amar putusan hakim, dan kepatuhan Pejabat TUN terhadap putusan Pengadilan TUN. Dampak tidak dilaksanakannya putusan PTUN yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap yaitu , Pengadilan tata usaha negara menjadi kehilangan kewibawaan, karena putusan-putusan yang dihasilkan tidak dapat dilaksanakan, timbulnya ketidakpercayaan terhadap pengadilan tata usaha negara, dan tidak adanya kepastian hukum.

---

State Administrative Court is aimed at providing law certainty and protection to the citizens that are looking for justice in state administrative area. The verdict of State Administrative Court can only be implemented when it has already been legally enforceable. The obstacle and problems in the legally enforceable verdict implementation becomes a challenge when it come to the purpose of the undertakings of a court which is a legal certainty, legal protection, and justice for justice seekers. The Verdict of State Administrative Court which cannot be implemented is caused by some problems in the implementation, that is execution issue through the mechanism of the questioned State Administrative Verdict revocation, execution through the payment of forced money, execution issue through administrative sanction mechanism, execution issue through notification to president.

Based on analysis; what is undertaken in this writing, it is concluded that there are several factors influencing in the execution of State Administrative Court?s verdict, that are the absense of implementation regulation in the application of forced money payment sanction and administrative sanction, the ruling of the judge, and compliance of the Court officers on the Court's verdict. The impact of non-performance of the legally forceable State Administrative Court's Verdict is that the Court becomes losing its prestige, since the produced verdicts are unenforceable, distrust to the court, and there is no legal certainty."

"Permasalahan penelitian pemberhentian Sekretaris Desa dengan menggunakan wewenang diskresi Kepala Desa studi putusan PTUN Bandung adalah Bagaimana kewenangan Kepala Desa mengelola Administrasi Kepegawaian perangkat desa? Bagaimana penggunaan wewenang diskresi Kepala Desa memberhentikan sekretaris desa? Bagaimana sikap PTUN Bandung memutus perkara pemberhentian sekretaris desa dengan diskresi Kepala Desa? Metode penelitiannya adalah penelitian yuridis normatif, tipologi preskriptif, jenis data sekunder, jenis bahan hukum primernya perundang-undangan administrasi pemerintahan, dan desa berserta peraturan turunannya, jenis bahan hukum sekunder yang digunakan buku dan jurnal ilmiah hukum administrasi negara, hukum administrasi kepegawaian, jenis bahan hukum tersier yang digunakan adalah black law dictionary, dan Kamus Besar lainnya. Data berupa deep interview dan perpustakaan online. Hasil penelitian dengan analisis argumentatif dapat disimpulkan, Kepala Desa memiliki wewenang atribusi untuk mengelola perangkat desa, Kepala Desa menggunakan wewenang diskresi memberhentikan Sekretaris Desa adalah hak prerogatif, sebagai problem solver, dengan prinsip rule of law, dan Asas Umum Pemerintahan Yang Baik (AUPB). Sikap PTUN Bandung membatalkan diskresi kepala desa karena melanggar asas tidak menyalahgunakan wewenang. Penulis menyarankan Kepala Desa dalam menggunakan diskresi untuk memperhatikan peraturan perundang-undangan, menggunakan AUPB, rule of law, dan asas penyelenggaraan pemerintah desa, untuk meminimalisir resiko gugatan ke PTUN, maka diskresi yang akan dikeluarkan dilakukan reviu oleh pejabat yang berwenang.

---

The problem research regarding the dismissal of the Village Secretary by using the the discretionary authority of the Head Village, the study of Bandung Administrative Court decision, is how the authority of the Village Head to manage the Village Apparatus Administration? How is use of the Village Head’s discretion to dismiss the Village Secretary? What is the attitude of the Bandung Administrative Court in deciding the case of dismissing the Village Secretary at the discretion of the Village Head? The research method normative judicial research, prescriptive typology, types of secondary data, types of primary legal materials, government administration, and village laws and regulations, types of secondary legal materials books and scientific journals of State administrative law, civil service administration law, types of tertiary legal materilas is black law dictionary, and other major dictionaries. The data are in the form of deep interviews and an online libraries. The result of the research with argumentative analysis can be concluded, the Village Head has attribution authority to manage the village apparatus, the Village Head uses the discretionary power to dismiss the Village Secretary as a prerogative, as a problem solver, with the principle of rule of law, and General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB) The attitude of the Bandung Administrative Court in this research case nullifies the Village Head’s discretion for violating the principle of not abusing authority. The Author advises the Village Head in using discretion to pay attention to statutory regulations, using General Principles of Good Governance, the rule of law, and the principles of village government administration, to minimize the risk of lawsuit against the State Administrative Court, so the discretion that has been issued must be reviewed fisrt by the authorized official."

"Sebagaimana diamanatkan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan bahwa setiap keputusan dan/atau tindakan wajib berdasarkan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan dan AAUPB. Ternyata dalam praktek sehari-hari, muncul peluang terjadinya suatu benturan kepentingan antara pemerintah dengan rakyat baik dalam bentuk onrechtmatig overheidsdaad, detournement de pouvoir, maupun dalam bentuk willekeur yang merupakan bentukbentuk penyimpangan tindakan pemerintahan yang mengakibatkan terampasnya hak-hak asasi warga negara. Telah diberikan legitimasi yuridis kepada hakim untuk menerapkan AAUPB sebagai alat uji dalam memutus perkara yang terjadi dalam peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Yurisprudensi yang dapat memberikan gambaran mengenai penerapan AAUPB dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan dapat dilihat adanya kasus pernyataan Jaksa Agung yang dianggap perbuatan melawan hukum dan melanggar asas kecermatan dalam AAUPB sesuai dengan Putusan PTUN No. No. 99/G/2020/PTUN-JKT. Bisa dilihat bahwa dalam pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan tersebut tidak dijelaskan secara komprehensif pelanggaran AAUPB dalam Tindakan Jaksa Agung. Skripsi ini pada pokoknya akan membahas 3 permasalahan, yaitu bagaimana pengaturan terkait AAUPB dalam hukum administrasi negara di Indonesia, bagaimana unsur pelanggaran AAUPB dalam pernyataan Jaksa Agung dalam Putusan Nomor: 99/G/2020/PTUN-JKT, dan bagaimana Bagaimanakah pertanggung jawaban hukum tindakan Jaksa Agung dalam Putusan Nomor: 99/G/2020/PTUN-JKT berdasarkan AAUPB.

---

As mandated in Act Number 30 of 2014 about Government Administration that every decision and/or action must be based on the provisions of laws and regulations and the Good Governance General Principles. It turns out that in daily practice, opportunities arise for a conflict of interest between the government and the people, both in the form of onrechtmatig overheidsdaad, detournement de pouvoir, as well as in the form of willekeur which are forms of irregularities in government actions that result in the deprivation of the human rights of citizens. Juridical legitimacy has been given to judges to apply Good Governance General Principles as a test tool in deciding cases that occur in the State Administrative Court. Jurisprudence that can provide an overview of the application of Good Governance General Principles in the administration of government can be seen in the case of the Attorney General's statement which is considered an unlawful act and violates the principle of accuracy in the Good Governance General Principles in accordance with the Administrative Court Verdict No. 99/G/2020/PTUN-JKT. It can be seen that the judge's consideration in the decision did not comprehensively explain the violation of Good Governance General Principles in the Attorney General's Action. This thesis will basically discuss 3 problems, namely how the arrangements related to Good Governance General Principles in state administrative law in Indonesia, how the elements of Good Governance General Principles violations in the statement of the Attorney General in Decision Number: 99/G/2020/PTUN-JKT, and how is the legal responsibility for actions taken by Attorney General in Verdict Number: 99/G/2020/PTUN-JKT based on Good Governance General Principles. "