Disobedience of State Administrative Officers in Implementing State Administrative Court Decisions (Study of Decisions of the Jayapura State Administrative Court)

Abstract

Because the State Administrative Agency/Officers do not want to implement PTUN decisions that have permanent legal force, awareness in implementing PTUN decisions often becomes an obstacle. Unlike the others in civil and criminal case decisions, where in the execution of decisions, for example civil lawsuit decisions request police assistance and criminal case decisions are carried out by the Attorney General's Office, the weakness of PTUN decisions generally depends on awareness or good ethics from State Administration Agencies/Officials . In order for the parties who have won a TUN case and made a positive contribution to the government to take firm action against state administration officials who are not subject to a court decision that has permanent legal force, the purpose of this research is to identify the causes of the non-implementation of the PTUN decision by the administrative body. or state administration officials. This research methodology, which combines statutory, legal context, and case approaches, is an example of normative legal research. According to research findings, disobedience to PTUN decisions by state administrative bodies or officials is an act against the law by the government (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad). By not complying with these provisions, state administration bodies or officials commit acts against the law, uncertainty for the plaintiff, neglect of the AAUPB, a tiered executive structure and executorial institutions have not yet been formed at the Administrative Court.