¹Eka Deviani,²Marlia Eka Putri AT,³Daffa Ladro Kusworo

^1,2,3Law Faculty of Lampung University, Indonesia

The problem that occurs next is that not many TUN Courts have handed down dwangsom in decisions to strengthen the executable decision, as a result of implementing regulations for coercive measures that are not yet available.Under Government Regulation (PP) Number 43 of 1991 concerning Compensation and Processes for its Implementation in the State Administrative Court, Article 117 of Law No. 51 of 2009 is implemented by the regulation specified in that regulation. The two main rules of the PP are compensation and compensation. Because forced money (dwangsom) is distinct from compensation or compensation, from a legal standpoint, the PP still does not take into account the laws on forced money techniques. The term "legal vacuum" (rechtsvacuum) refers to a situation where some things have not been covered by positive legislation, given that the law itself cannot address all facets of life that are constantly evolving.The methodology taken in this text is juridical-normative, or based on legal material and looking at concepts, theories, legal principles, and statutory rules. The study's findings indicate that there are varying and mutually counterproductive norms regarding the quantity of forced money to be paid, the kinds of administrative sanctions to be applied, and the methods for carrying them out, along with transfers of positions and the filling of the Plaintiff's positions by other people, all of which delay the administration of justice.

Administrative Sanctions, Execution, Forced Money

1) Ali, Z. (2021). Metode Penelitian Hukum (L. Wulandari (ed.)). Sinar Grafika.

2) Badriyah Khaleed, S. H. (2018). Mekanisme Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN). Media Pressindo.

3) Pattipawae, D. R. (2019). Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Di Era Otonomi. Sasi, 25(1).

4) Pattipawae, D., & Salmon, H. (2022). Penerapan Uang Paksa (Dwangsom) Dalam Eksekusi Putusan Tatausaha Negara Terhadap Ketidakpatuhan Pejabat Tun. Community Development Journal: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat, 3(3).

5) Pratama, I. W. D. C., Dewi, A. A. S. L., & Suryani, L. P. (2020). Upaya Paksa terhadap Pejabat yang Tidak Melakukan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Denpasar. Jurnal Preferensi Hukum, 1(2).

6) Putra, F. A. S. (2021). Problem Eksekutorial Putusan Hakim Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Justisi, 7(1).

7) Sari, L. P., & Wibowo, A. (2023). Pelaksanaan Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN): Pengadilan tata usaha negara, Hukum, Indonesia, Putusan pengadilan. Jurnal Penelitian Multidisiplin, 2(1).

8) Simanjuntak, E. (2014). Prospek Ombudsman Republik Indonesia Dalam Rangka Memperkuat Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Putusan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 3(2).

9) Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (Lembaran Negara Tahun 2014 Nomor 292, Tambahan Lembaran Negara No. 5601).

10) Undang Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1986 Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (Lembaran Negara Tahun 1986 Nomor 77, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 3344).

11) Wiyono, R. (2019). Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Sinar Grafika.

VOLUME 06 ISSUE 03 MARCH 2023

There is an Open Access article, distributed under the term of the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.