scholarly journals Penyelesaian Perkara Perdata di Pengadilan Berdasarkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2016

Author(s):  
I Komang Wiantara

The existence of mediation in the settlement of civil disputes in the courts is regulated in the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in the Court which contains ten principles including: mediation must be taken, party autonomy, mediation in good faith, time efficiency, mediator certification, mediator responsibility , confidentiality, financing, repetition of mediation, peace agreements outside the court, become integral parts in resolving disputes in court. In addition, mediation in the court strengthened peaceful efforts as stated in the Civil Procedure Code. The purpose of this study is to understand and analyze the legal strength of mediation in the Court. This study uses a normative juridical research method using the statutory approach. Study show that due to its consensual and collaborative nature, mediation always results in a dispute resolution in a win-win solution that is strengthened to become a Peace Deed, which has Executorial power like a Court Decision. Eksistensi mediasi dalam penyelesaian sengketa perdata di pengadilan diatur dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 Tentang Prosedur Mediasi Di Pengadilan yang memuat sepuluh prinsip meliputi: mediasi wajib ditempuh, otonomi para pihak, mediasi dengan itikad baik, efisiensi waktu, sertifikasi mediator, tanggung jawab mediator, kerahasiaan, pembiayaan, pengulangan mediasi, kesepakatan perdamaian di luar pengadilan, menjadi bagian dalam integral dalam penyelesaian sengketa di pengadilan. Selain itu mediasi pada pengadilan memperkuat upaya damai sebagaimana yang tertuang di dalam hukum acara Perdata. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk memahami dan menganalisis kekuatan hukum mediasi menurut Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 Tentang Prosedur Mediasi Di Pengadilan. Kajian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa karena sifatnya yang konsensual dan kolaboratif, maka mediasi selalu menghasilkan penyelesaian sengketa dengan cara sama-sama menguntungkan bagi para pihak (win-win solution) yang dikuatkan menjadi Akta Perdamaian, yang memiliki kekuatan Eksekutorial layaknya Putusan Pengadilan.

Media Iuris ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Ajrina Yuka Ardhira ◽  
Ghansham Anand

Mediation is a duty which must be taken by the parties wishing to settle its dispute in the Court as specified in the Civil Procedure Code and in accordance with Article 130 HIR and 154 RGB. To improve the regulation of mediation in the Court, the Supreme Court shall issue its Regulation, namely the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 on Mediation Procedures in the Court. Where the regulations on mediation as stipulated in the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 use good faith in its formal conditions. And with such a condition the Supreme Court expects the success rate of mediation in the first level to increase so as to reduce the number of cases accumulated at the Supreme Court. Good faith as a duty to the parties in the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2016 is made clear in Article 7 paragraph (1), where there are legal consequences for parties that are considered not having good intentions by doing things listed in Article 7 paragraph (2) , namely Article 22 for the plaintiff and Article 23 for the defendant. 


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dessy Perdani Yuris PS

The implementation of court judgments needs to be observed and perceived, thus the birth of Supervisor and Observer Judge Institution by Law No. 8 of 1981. The position of a Judge is not simply responsible for imposition of punishment, but also have to responsible for completion of punishment term by inmates in Correctional Institute by appropriate pattern and program of counseling. Besides in article 277 KUHAP till article 288 KUHAP it is charged another task as supervisor and observer of the court decision. The research results show that the implementation of the Supervisory Judge task and Observers in the execution of court decisions in Purwokerto Penitentiary is based on the Criminal Procedure Code Article 277 through Article 283 Criminal Procedure Code, the implementing regulations of the Supreme Court Circular No. RI. No. 7 of 1985. Supervisory Judge in the performance of duties and Observers in Purwokerto Penitentiary still met the constraints that are internal or external, internal resistance from law enforcement and the factors of factor means or facilities. Then the external barriers are the ruling factor.Keywords : Supervisor and Observer Judge, Purwokerto Penitentiary and prisoner


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 381
Author(s):  
Arfi Azhari ◽  
Siti Nurbaiti

Consumer Finance is a financing activity for the procurement of goods based on consumer needs with payment in installments. In consumer financing, the parties must have good intentions for the smooth running of the agreement, but in practice the principle of good faith is often violated by the parties such as in the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 1041 / K-Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2017 decides to grant a request from Martha Sitorus (consumer) with consideration of Article 2 of the UUPK and the principle of good faith, which in this case with the existence of the decision clearly has harmed PT. Toyota Astra Financial Service Medan (business actor) for consumer financing agreements. The problem studied is how the legal protection of business actors carried out by consumers in consumer financing and how the RI Decision No. 1041 / K-Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2017 towards legal protection of business actors carried out by consumers in consumer financing. The research method used is a normative method supported by interview data. The results of the writing illustrate that the business actor does not receive legal protection as stipulated in Article 6 letter (b) UUPK and in the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 1041 / K-Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2017 The Panel of Judges is not right in making decisions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
ALI MARWAN HSB

ABSTRAKUndang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001 tentang Merek mengatur bahwa untuk penyelesaian sengketa atau pelanggaran merek dapat ditempuh melalui dua alternatif penyelesaian, yaitu dengan mengajukan gugatan ke pengadilan niaga (secara perdata) dan diadukan kepada penyidik untuk diselesaikan secara pidana. Kedua penyelesaian inilah yang ditempuh sekaligus oleh GG melawan GB. Kasus ini kemudian sampai pada upaya hukum luar biasa yaitu peninjauan kembali. Dalam peninjauan kembali perkara perdata, pihak GG mengajukan putusan peninjauan kembali perkara pidana sebagai novum. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, dapat dirumuskan permasalahan dalam tulisan ini adalah: apakah putusan peninjauan kembali perkara pidana dapat dijadikan novum dalam peninjauan kembali perkara perdata? Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif atau metode penelitian kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa jika dikaji dari alasan pengajuan peninjauan kembali yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 tentang Mahkamah Agung, suatu putusan pengadilan dapat dijadikan alasan dalam permohonan peninjauan kembali, apabila ada pertentangan antara putusan yang satu dengan yang lain. Pertentangan itu harus antara putusan oleh peradilan yang sama atau sama tingkatan. Pengajuan putusan peninjauan kembali perkara pidana menjadi novum dalam peninjauan kembali perkara perdata atau sebaliknya, tidak dapat dibenarkan.Kata kunci: peninjauan kembali, pidana, perdata, novum. ABSTRACT Law Number 15 of 2001 concerning Trademark stipulates that resolution of disputes or violations of brands can be taken through two alternative ways, namely filing a lawsuit to the Commercial Court (civil) and secondly filing a complaint with the investigator for a criminal settlement. These two solutions were taken at the same time by both parties, GG against GB. This case was then up to the extraordinary request for review. In the review of civil cases, GG filed a decision on a criminal case review as novum. Based on this, the problems outlined in this analysis is whether the decision of a criminal case review can be made novum in reviewing a civil case. The method used is a normative juridical research method or literature research method. As stipulated in Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court, pertaining to the reasoning of filing an extraordinary request for case review, the research result shows that a court decision can be used as an excuse to file a case review, provided that there is conflict between one decision and another. Filing a criminal case review decision as novum in civil case review or vice versa cannot be justified. Keywords: case review, criminal, civil, novum.


Kosmik Hukum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Fathalya Laksana

The legal requirements are regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). If the valid conditions of the promise are not fulfilled, then the law that results is that the agreement can be canceled or null and void. In the Court's practice contained in the Supreme Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018, there was a sale and purchase agreement between the Plaintiff's husband and the Defendant, the sale and purchase agreement was made by the Plaintiff's partner without the consent of the Plaintiff as his legal wife. Supreme Court Decision No. 1081K / PDT / 2018 stated that the sale and purchase agreement was invalid and null and void. Apart from that, in its decision, the Defendant's UN Supreme Court had committed an illegal act. The research method used is a normative juridical approach using secondary data obtained from literature studies, namely statutory regulations, legal theories, and the opinions of leading legal scholars. This research uses descriptive analytical research specifications that describe the regulations that are in accordance with legal theories that oversee the implementation practices of the problems under study. The data analysis method used is qualitative normative method. Based on the research results, it can be denied that the sale and purchase agreement in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018 is not legally valid. The agreement does not fulfill the validity requirements of the agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely halal skills and causes because it violates Article 36 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law No. 1 of 1974 resulting in the sale and purchase agreement to be null and void.Keywords: Buying and Selling, Acts against the Law, Agreement, Marriage, Collective Property


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Chairul Nopriansyah

The judge plays an important role in the judiciary because the judge has the authority to examine, hear and decide on a case so that he is obliged to look for values ​​of justice in the application of progressive and responsive laws, so the judge in issuing decisions must pay attention to various considerations. Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains several elements of judges' considerations when making decisions. In the case of an acquittal, the judge needs carefulness and carefulness to consider so that a matter must be truly convincing. This research is a doctrinal research method that is taking the opinions of experts regarding free decisions and through legal products in the form of legislation and judges' decisions. The conclusion of this paper is First, the basic consideration of the judge in passing a free verdict (vrijspraak) is not fulfilling the minimum limit of evidence by the public prosecutor so that the judge will release the defendant because the evidence that can blame the defendant is insufficient and based on the elaboration of the writer above, the Supreme Court allows legal efforts to overturn an acquittal (vrijspraak) namely an appeal on an acquittal, but not all verdicts requested for appeal are always accepted by the Supreme Court.


ADALAH ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelia Verina Withania ◽  
Ahmad Mahyani

The existence of rules limiting the cassation becomes an obstacle for the public to obtain justice and is not in accordance with the principles of the state of Indonesia as a state of law which is stated in the provisions of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in Article 28D. Problem: Is the limitation of cassation in Article 45A of the Supreme Court Law in accordance with the provisions of the 1945 Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code. This research is a normative research method with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach as well as prescriptive analysis techniques. The cassation legal effort should return to its basic purpose, namely maintaining legal uniformity and unity and providing justice for the community.


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-180
Author(s):  
Atanas Ivanov

Abstract The right of the party concerned to a cassation appeal is result of specific inspection performed by the Supreme Court of Cassation where examined is the presence of conditions, foreseen in art. 280, par. 1 of Civil-Procedure Code. The right of cassation, however, shall incur from the presence of appellate judgment [1], and not from the specific inspection of Supreme Court of Cassation. The cassation appeal is submitted when the resolution is void, impermissible or inaccurate. This is why the right of cassation appeal is presented and guaranteed by the law opportunity of an individual to oblige Supreme Court of Cassation to rule on the first stage of cassation proceeding - the proceeding on allowing the cassation appeal estimating the statutory criteria in art. 280 of Civil-Procedure Code.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document