PROBLEMATIK UPAYA PAKSA TERKAIT EKSEKUSI PUTUSAN SENGKETA KEPEGAWAIAN
THE PROBLEMATIC OF FORCED EFFORT RELATED TO EXECUTION OF COURT DECISION OF PERSONNEL AFFAIR DISPUTE
Inti permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah ketiadaan aturan pelaksana upaya paksa sebagaimana Pasal 116 ayat (7) UU 51/2009 (UU Peratun) mendelegasikan aturan pelaksana tersebut agar dibentuk dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Dalam sudut pandang yuridis, ketentuan ini masih menimbulkan problem, yakni: 1. Jenis Peraturan apa yang dimaksud berupa produk hukum apa?; 2. Bagaimana substansi aturan pelaksana upaya paksa tersebut jika diakomodir ke dalam peraturan perundang-undangan? Karena fakta yuridisnya, peraturan teknis tersebut belum diatur dalam perundang-undangan manapun. Khususnya pada eksekusi putusan sengketa kepegawaian yang bermasalah karena adanya pejabat yang telah menduduki jabatan dimana seharusnya Penggugat dikembalikan ke jabatan tersebut (rehabilitasi). Tujuan penelitian ini ialah sebagai bahan sumbangan pemikiran kepada negara agar segera membentuk aturan pelaksana upaya paksa. Jenis penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif, dengan isu kekosongan hukum. Metode analisis ialah analisis preskriptif. Perundang-undangan sebagai bahan hukum primer dan buku, jurnal, disertasi sebagai bahan hukum sekunder.
Hasil Penelitian ini antara lain: 1. Konstruksi penentuan produk hukum yang tepat sebagai aturan pelaksana upaya paksa adalah Peraturan Pemerintah; 2. Konstruksi mekanisme pengenaan uang paksa (dwangsom) dan sanksi administratif sebagai upaya paksa harus diawali oleh amar putusan yang mengabulkan permohonan upaya paksa Penggugat. Sehingga dapat disimpulkan, pelaksanaan upaya paksa dikenakan berdasar pada petitum gugatan yang memohon agar Tergugat dikenakan upaya paksa jika Tergugat lalai menjalankan isi putusan.
The main problem in this research is the absence of forced effort delegated regulation as Article 116 paragraph (7) of Law 51/2009 (UU Peratun) delegates these implementing regulations to be formed with statutory regulations. In the juridical view, this provision still creates problems: 1. What type of regulation does Article 116 (7) UU Peratun meant in the form of a legal product?; 2. What is the substance of the implementation of the forced effort if it is accommodated in statutory regulations? Due to the juridical facts, these technical regulations have not been regulated in any legislation. Particularly in the execution of employment dispute decisions which are problematic because there are officials who have occupied positions where the Plaintiff should have been returned to that position (rehabilitation). The purpose of this research is to provide material for contributing ideas to the state so that they immediately form implementing regulations for coercive measures. This type of research is normative juridical, with the issue of legal vacuum. The method of analysis is prescriptive analysis. Legislation as primary legal material and books, journals, dissertations as secondary legal material.
The results of this research include: 1. The construction of determining the right legal product as implementing regulations for coercive measures is a Government Regulation; 2. The construction of a mechanism for imposing forced money (dwangsom) and administrative sanctions as a form of coercion must be initiated by a decision granting the plaintiff's request for coercion. So that it can be concluded, the implementation of forced measures is imposed based on the petitum of the lawsuit requesting that the Defendant be subject to forced measures if the Defendant neglects to carry out the contents of the decision.