Putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap (inkracht van gewijsde) seharusnya dapat dilaksanakan sebagai perwujudan penegakan hukum. Namun, dalam praktik peradilan perdata di Indonesia masih sering dijumpai putusan yang non-executable atau tidak dapat dilaksanakan.Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis faktor penyebab putusan non-executable, aspek yuridis yang memengaruhinya,serta solusi yang dapat ditempuh baik secara preventif maupun kuratif. Metode penelitian menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif melalui kajian peraturan perundang-undangan dan studi kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Pasaman Barat Nomor 21/Pdt.G/2020/PN Psb. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa putusan non-executable disebabkan oleh amar yang hanya deklaratif, objek gugatan atau eksekusi yang tidak jelas, ketidakpastian batas tanah sengketa, keberadaan objek di tangan pihak ketiga, serta tidak adanya amar kondemnator. Faktor-faktor ini bertentangan dengan Pasal 178 ayat (3) HIR, Pasal 8 ayat (3) Rv, Pasal 195 HIR, dan Pasal 224 HIR yang mensyaratkan kejelasan gugatan, objek, dan amar sebagai dasar eksekusi.Hambatan juga disebabkan ketidaksinkronan antara hukum acara perdata dan administrasi pertanahan, sehingga pelaksanaan putusan sering terhambat meskipun telah memiliki kekuatan phukum tetap. Solusi preventif meliputi penyusunan gugatan secara jelas, perumusan petitum lengkap, dan permintaan amar kondemnator. Sedangkan solusi kuratif dapat dilakukan melalui upaya hukum biasa maupun luar biasa, penafsiran putusan, gugatan ulang, serta mediasi sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 130 HIR dan PERMA No. 1 Tahun 2016. Penelitian ini menegaskan pentingnya ketelitian hakim dan advokat agar putusan tidak hanya berkekuatan hukum tetap, tetapi juga dapat dieksekusi sesuai asas kepastian hukum, kemanfaatan, dan keadilan (Pasal 2 ayat (2) UU No. 48 Tahun 2009). Kesimpulan, efektivitas pelaksanaan putusan pengadilan sangat bergantung pada kejelasan amar, ketepatan prosedur, dan sinkronisasi kelembagaan, sehingga diperlukan pembenahan menyeluruh baik dari sisi yuridis maupun administratif.
Kata Kunci:Putusan Non-Executable,Amar Kondemnator,amar deklaratif,Eksekusi, Kepastian Hukum,yuridis normatif.
A court decision that has obtained permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde) should be enforceable as a manifestation of law enforcement. However, in the practice of civil judiciary in Indonesia, non-executable decisions are still frequently found. This research aims to analyze the factors causing non-executable decisions, the juridical aspects influencing them, and the preventive and curative solutions that can be taken. The research method uses a normative juridical approach through the study of legislation and a case study of the Pasaman Barat District Court Decision Number 21/Pdt.G/2020/PN Psb. The results indicate that non-executable decisions are caused by judgments that are merely declaratory in nature, unclear objects of claim or execution,uncertainty regarding the boundaries of the disputed land, the object being in the possession of third parties, and the absence of a condemnatory judgment. These factors contradict Article 178paragraph (3) HIR, Article 8 paragraph (3) Rv, Article 195 HIR, and Article 224 HIR,which require clarity of claims, objects, and judgments as the basis for execution. Obstacles also arise from the lack of synchronization between civil procedural law and land administration, which often hampers the execution of decisions even after they have obtained permanent legal force.Preventive solutions include drafting clear claims, formulating complete petitum, and requesting a condemnatory judgment. Curative solutions can be pursued through ordinary and extraordinary legal remedies, interpretation of the decision, refiling the lawsuit, and mediation as regulated in Article 130 HIR and Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 1 of 2016. This research emphasizes the importance of accuracy by judges and advocates so that court decisions are not only legally binding but also executable in accordance with the principles of legal certainty,expediency, and justice (Article 2 paragraph (2) of Law No. 48 of 2009). In conclusion, the effectiveness of court decision execution largely depends on the clarity of the judgment,procedural accuracy, and institutional synchronization, thereby requiring comprehensive improvements both juridically and administratively.
Keywords: Non-Executable Decision, Condemnatory Judgment, Declaratory Judgment,Execution, Legal Certainty, Normative Juridical.
