ABSTRAK
Hadirnya Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (TUN) sebagai lembaga penegak hukumadministrasi bagi para pencari keadilan, seringkali menemui hambatan ataspelaksanaan/eksekusi putusan. Putusan yang dimaksud ialah dalam konteksputusan tersebut sudah in kracht, terhadap putusan yang sudah in kracht tersebutPejabat TUN selaku pihak yang kalah seringkali tidak mau mematuhi isi putusandari para hakim PTUN. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatifdengan menggunakan data sekunder. Terhadap faktor-faktor tidakdilaksanakannya putusan TUN disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor diantaranyaseperti belum adanya pengaturan pelaksanaan terkait uang paksa, penggunaanmedia massa sebagai upaya pejabat TUN jera ternyata tidak mudah dijangkau olehpenggugat, eksekusi hierarkis yang sering tidak ditindaklanjuti, serta dapatdisimpulkan sekalipun terdapat berbagai macam upaya paksa ternyata letakmartabat dan daya eksekusi putusan TUN sendiri berada pada kesadaran/selfrespect dari pejabat TUN. Adapun perbuatan tidak patuh terhadap isi putusanTUN tersebut dapat masuk kedalam unsur perbuatan Contempt of Court yangdisebutkan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 jo Undang-UndangNomor 5 Tahun 2004 tentang Mahkamah Agung. Adapun jenis perbuatankonstitutif ketidak patuhan pejabat TUN masuk kedalam bentuk penentanganterhadap perintah pengadilan secara terbuka atau disebut Obstruction of Justice.Hal tersebut dapat berimplikasi terhadap kemungkinan kriminalisasi Pejabat TUNsesuai Pasal 216 KUHP atas konsekuensi perbuatan tidak patuh tersebut.

---

ABSTRACT
The presence of the State Administrative Court (TUN) as an administrative lawenforcement agency for justice seekers, often faces obstacles to theimplementation / execution of decisions. The verdict in question is in the contextof the verdict already in kracht, against the verdict that is already in kracht TUNofficials as the losing party often do not want to comply with the contents of thedecisions of the PTUN judges. This type of research is normative legal researchusing secondary data. The factors that the implementation of the TUN verdictwere not caused by several factors such as the lack of implementationarrangements related to forced money, the use of mass media as a deterrent fromTUN officials was apparently not easy to reach by the plaintiff, hierarchicalexecutions were often not followed up, and it could be concluded even thoughthere were various the kind of forced effort turns out that the location of thedignity and power of execution of the TUN decision itself is in the awareness /self respect of the TUN official. The act of not complying with the contents of theTUN decision can be included in the Contempt of Court element of actionmentioned in Act Number 14 of 1985 jo Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning theSupreme Court. The type of constitutive act of disobedience of TUN officials goesinto the form of open opposition to court orders or called Obstruction of Justice.This can have implications for the possibility of criminalization of TUN Officialsin accordance with Article 216 of the Criminal Code for the consequences of suchnon-compliance.