English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

ABSTRAKWanprestasi dalam perjanjian konstruksi kerap ditemui dalam praktik, baik yang dilakukan oleh pemberi pekerjaan, maupun pihak pelaksana pekerjaan. Konsekuensinya, pihak yang melakukan wanprestasi dibebankan memulihkan kerugian yang timbul dari pelaksanaan perjanjian. Hal demikian tercermin dalam Putusan Nomor 72/PDT.G/2014/PN.TGR, di mana Kepala Dinas Kesehatan Kota Tangerang Selatan selaku pihak pemberi pekerjaan proyek terbukti melakukan wanprestasi. Menarik untuk dicermati, majelis hakim dalam putusannya justru membebankan Walikota Tangerang Selatan untuk bertanggung jawab secara keperdataan. Isu hukum yang hendak dijawab dalam tulisan ini, terkait apakah penafsiran hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 72/PDT.G/2014/PN.TNG tentang pembebanan tanggung jawab perdata kepada kepala daerah akibat wanprestasi yang dilakukan oleh kepala dinas telah sesuai dengan ajaran hukum administrasi negara, dan ajaran hukum perdata. Untuk menjawab isu hukum tersebut, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan bersandar pada data sekunder yang diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa majelis hakim telah keliru dalam menafsirkan konsep pertanggungjawaban kepala daerah. Menurut ajaran hukum administrasi negara, walikota selaku kepala daerah tidak dapat dimintai tanggung jawab secara perdata akibat wanprestasi yang dilakukan kepala dinas. Demikian pula dari perspektif Pasal 1340 KUHPerdata, walikota bukanlah merupakan pihak dalam pelaksanaan perjanjian yang dibuat oleh kepala dinas, sehingga tidak dapat dibebani tanggung jawab secara keperdataan.Kata kunci: tanggung jawab perdata, kepala daerah, wanprestasi. ABSTRACT Breach of contract in construction agreements is often found in practice, whether carried out by the employer, or the implementing party. As a consequence, the defaulting party is charged to recover losses arising from the implementation of the agreement. This was reflected in Court Decision Number 72/PDT.G/2014/ PN.TGR, which is the Head of South Tangerang City Health Office, as the project employer, has been proven in breach of contract. It is interesting to note that the panel of judges in its decision actually charged the Mayor of South Tangerang with a contractual liability. The legal issue in this paper is whether the interpretation of judges in Court Decision Number 72/PDT.G/2014/ PN.TNG concerning the imposition of civil liability to the regional head due to default committed by the head  of office is in accordance with the teachings of the law of state administration and civil law. To answer these issues, the author uses normative legal research methods based on secondary data obtained through literature studies. The results of the analysis show that the panel of judges has erred in interpreting the concept of regional head accountability. According to the teachings of the state administration law, the mayor as the head of the region cannot be privately liable for the default committed by the head of office. Likewise, from the perspective of Article 1340 of the Civil Code, the mayor is not a party to the implementation of the agreement made by the head of office, therefore civil liability cannot be burdened to him. Keywords: civil liability, regional head, default.

PEMBEBANAN TANGGUNG JAWAB PERDATA KEPADA KEPALA DAERAH AKIBAT WANPRESTASI OLEH KEPALA DINAS