Institusi Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia. Tugas dan kewenangan jaksa dalam bidang pidana diatur dalam Pasal 30 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Kejaksaan, dan dalam huruf c pasal tersebut juga telah disebutkan terkait tugas jaksa untuk melaksanakan pengawasan putusan pengadilan, antara lain putusan pidana bersyarat, putusan pidana pengawasan, dan keputusan lepas bersyarat. Penyimpangan dalam proses peradilan pidana juga dapat terjadi pada tahap pelaksanaan putusan pengadilan (pasca ajudikasi), seperti banyaknya kasus pelanggaran terhadap putusan pengadilan berupa pidana penjara, antara lain kasus narapidana bebas keluar masuk lapas/rutan dan terdapat banyak sel mewah narapidana di beberapa lapas/rutan di Indonesia. Melihat banyaknya kasus pelanggaran terhadap putusan pengadilan tersebut, sangat diperlukan adanya pengawasan yang baik dan sesuai aturan, serta adanya koordinasi antara pihak-pihak yang berkaitan dengan pengawasan putusan pengadilan ini, antara lain jaksa, hakim pengawas dan pengamat, serta balai pemasyarakatan.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pelaksanaan pengawasan putusan pengadilan di Gresik Jawa Timur dan koordinasi antara Hakim Wasmat, Jaksa Pengawas, dan pihak Balai Pemasyarakatan (Bapas) dalam mengawasi pelaksanaan putusan pengadilan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis empiris, dan pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan yuridis sosiologis. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan wawancara dan data yang diperoleh dianalisis secara kualitatif.

Pelaksanaan pengawasan putusan pengadilan di Gresik Jawa Timur tidak sesuai dengan aturan yang ada. Selanjutnya terkait koordinasi antara pihak-pihak tersebut juga tidak terlaksana sesuai aturan. Kendala dalam pelaksanaan pengawasan putusan pengadilan yaitu tidak adanya aturan khusus yang jelas dan tegas yang mengatur hal tersebut. Kemudian dalam hal koordinasi yang tidak terlaksana, kendala yang ada yaitu pihak-pihak yang bertanggung jawab atas pengawasan putusan pengadilan tidak paham akan tugas dan fungsinya sebagai penegak hukum. Oleh karena itu perlu dibuat aturan tentang pengawasan putusan pengadilan yang lebih jelas dan tegas oleh pemerintah melalui Kemenkumham, kemudian sosialisasi terkait tugas pokok dan fungsi seluruh aparat penegak hukum, serta pengawasan terhadap kedisiplinan kinerja dan pelaksanaan tugas aparat penegak hukum.

Kata kunci : Jaksa, Pengawasan, Koordinasi, Hakim Pengawas dan Pengamat, Bapas.

The Prosecutor's of the Republic of Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's of the Republic of Indonesia (hereinafter referred to as the Prosecutor's Law). The duty and authority of the prosecutor in the criminal field is regulated in Article 30 paragraph (1) of the Prosecutor's Law, and in letter c the article has also been mentioned regarding the duty of prosecutors to carry out supervision of court decisions, including conditional criminal decisions, criminal supervision, and decisions parole. Deviations in the criminal justice process can also occur at the stage of implementing court decisions (after adjudication), so that there is a need for maximum and good supervision, as well as coordination between parties relating to the supervision of these court decisions, including prosecutors, supervisory judges and observers, as well as correctional centers.

This study aims to analyze the implementation of supervision of court decisions by the attorney supervisor at the Gresik District Prosecutor's Office in East Java and the coordination between supervisory judges and observers, the Attorney General, and the Correctional Center (Bapas) in overseeing the implementation of court decisions. This research is an empirical juridical research and uses a sociological juridical approach, namely research to find out how it is implemented in the field, whether it is in accordance with existing rules in law enforcement.

The supervision of court decisions by the attorney supervisor at the Gresik District Prosecutor's Office in East Java was not in accordance with the existing rules, as were the other parties who were not optimal in carrying out supervision. Furthermore, the coordination between these parties is also not good. Constraints in the implementation of supervision of the court's decision are the absence of clear and explicit rules that govern this matter. Then in terms of coordination that has not been implemented properly, the constraints that exist are the lack of understanding of the parties on their duties and functions as law enforcement. Therefore it is necessary to make rules regarding the supervision of court decisions more clearly and explicitly by the government, then socialization regarding the main duties and functions of all law enforcement officers, as well as monitoring the discipline of performance and the implementation of the duties of law enforcement officers.

Keywords: Prosecutor, Supervision, Coordination, Supervisor and Observer Judge, Bapas.