PENGAWASAN PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA TERHADAP KEPUTUSAN TATA USAHA NEGARA DI PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA YOGYAKARTA (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Yogyakarta Nomor: 4/G/2019/PTUN.YK.)

Fernandez, Fidelis Angelus Nanggo (2021) PENGAWASAN PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA TERHADAP KEPUTUSAN TATA USAHA NEGARA DI PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA YOGYAKARTA (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Yogyakarta Nomor: 4/G/2019/PTUN.YK.). S1 thesis, UNIVERSITAS ATMA JAYA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (Fidelis Angelus Nanggo Fernandez) 150512166 0.pdf Download (959kB) | Preview
Preview	Text 150512166-1.pdf Download (965kB) | Preview
	Text 150512166-2.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB)
Preview	Text 150512166-3.pdf Download (842kB) | Preview

Abstract

This study is titled Supervision of the State Administrative Court against the State Administrative decisions at the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court (Case Study of the Decision of the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court Number: 4/G/2019/PTUN.YK.). This study aims to find out how are the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court carries out its supervisory function in the dispute Number 4/G/2019/PTUN.YK. What are the obstacles faced by the Yogyakarta Administrative Court in carrying out these functions in the a quo dispute; and what efforts have been made by the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court to overcome these obstacles. In this study, the writer uses normative legal research: researching and analyzing the secondary data. The secondary data is compiled systematically, studied objectively, and then conclusions are drawn in relation to the problem of study. The results of the study shows that first, the Yogyakarta Administrative Court has carried out its supervisory function in the a quo dispute. This supervision is a juridical control over state administration disputes, and this control is repressive and rechmatigheid. Second, the Yogyakarta Administrative Court cannot confirm whether the disputing parties have implemented the decision or not, because the parties did not file a legal action against the decision. The Plaintiff did not submit an application letter to the Chairperson of the Yogyakarta Administrative Court regarding the Defendant's non-implementation of the decision, because the parties did not file a legal action against the decision. The Plaintiff also did not submit a letter of application to the Chairperson of the Yogyakarta Administrative Court regarding the Defendant is not implementing the decision, and there is a possibility that the Plaintiff accepted the decision voluntarily, even though the Defendant did not implement the verdict. Third, the Yogyakarta Administrative Court is a judicial institution established to oversee the administration of government through juridical control over state administrative decisions. Thus, it is necessary to make continuous improvements to overcome obstacles to the implementation of supervision by the administrative court including the Yogyakarta Administrative Court against state administrative decisions issued by state administrative officials

Actions (login required)

View Item