scholarly journals The Adjudication of Marriage Disputes through Mediation at the Manado Religious Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-110
Author(s):  
Faradila Hasan ◽  
Nasruddin Yusuf ◽  
Moh. Muzwir R. Luntajo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Divorce Rate ◽  
Mediation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Marital Disputes

Abstract: The phenomenon of marital disputes that often end in divorce has been a serious concern of the government, resulting in a regulation on mediation, namely the Regulation of the Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia (PERMA) Number 1 of 2016. This regulation was made with the hope of reducing the divorce rate caused by marriage disputes. This article discusses the form of marriage dispute resolution at Manado Religious Court with a focus on one type of dispute resolution, namely mediation. This study uses an empirical juridical approach. The research was conducted at the Manado City Religious Court in 2017 and 2020. The result is that the mediation process has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of PERMA No.1 of 2016. However, there have been many obstacles. Thus, the efforts to reduce the divorce rate due to marriage disputes have not undergone significant changes. Keywords: mediation; marriage dispute; Manado religious court. Abstrak: Fenomena sengketa perkawinan yang sering berakhir pada perceraian menjadi perhatian serius dari pemerintah sehingga melahirkan aturan tentang mediasi yaitu Peraturan Mahkamah Agung RI (PERMA) No. 1 Tahun 2016. Aturan ini dibuat dengan harapan menekan angka perceraian yang diakibatkan oleh sengketa perkawinan. Artikel ini membahas mengenai bentuk penyelesaian sengketa perkawinan di Pengadilan Agama Manado dengan fokus pada salah satu jenis penyelesaian sengketa yaitu mediasi. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis empiris. Penelitian ini dilakukan di Pengadilan Agama Kota Manado pada tahun 2017 dan tahun 2020. Hasilnya adalah proses mediasi sudah dilakukan sesuai dengan ketentuan PERMA No.1 Tahun 2016. Namun mengalami benyak kendala sehingga upaya untuk menekan angka perceraian akibat sengketa perkawinan belum mengalami perubahan yang signifikan. Kata-kata kunci: mediasi; sengketa perkawinan; pengadilan agama Manado.

scholarly journals Mediation in Marriage Disputes and Divorce (Analytical Study on the Application of Mediation in the Gorontalo Religious Court)

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-111
Author(s):  
Faradila Hasan ◽  
Yasin - ◽  
Fikri Amiruddin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Study ◽  
Divorce Rate ◽  
Mediation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Marital Disputes ◽  
Religious Courts

Abstract: This article discussed mediation as a way of resolving marital disputes. Divorce was one form of marital dispute in the Religious Courts, and in terms of resolving marital disputes, mediation was required. Although the rules of mediation in the judiciary are very clear, the facts show that the disputing parties and the courts have not optimized their use so that the divorce rate every year does not experience a significant decrease; on the contrary, it increases. The theory regarding mediation procedures in the Religious Courts has clearly been stated in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (No. 1 of 2016). This article aims to analyze the implementation of the mediation process at the Gorontalo Religious Court. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more in-depth research on the effectiveness of the Gorontalo Religious Court to resolve marital disputes that lead to divorce, which can be avoided, and the litigants can get back together and foster a ‘sakinah mawaddah wa rahmah’ household. This article used a qualitative with an empirical juridical approach. It could be concluded that the mediation had been carried out at the Gorontalo Religious Court under the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (No. 1 of 2016). Four factors affect successful and unsuccessful mediation, namely the litigation party factor, the mediator factor, the advocate or lawyer factor, and the representative mediation room factor.

scholarly journals Expansion of the Objects of State Administrative Disputes after the Enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 Concerning Government Administration and Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 Concerning Guidelines for the Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies or Officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad / OOD)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 383
Author(s):  
Sonyendah Retnaningsih ◽  
Disriani Latifah Soroinda Nasution ◽  
Heryna Oktaviani ◽  
Muhammad Rizqi Alfarizi Ramadhan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Government Action ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

Historically, State Administrative Court (PTUN) has existed since 1986, with the enactment of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court which currently has been amended by Law Number 9 of 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court and amended again by Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. The role of the Administrative Court according to the explanation of the law, the PTUN functions as a control or supervisory agency thus legal actions from government officials do not deviate, in addition to protecting the rights of citizens from the actions of officials who abuse their authority or act arbitrarily. Currently, the object of dispute and can be sued at the State Administrative Court is only a State Administration decision reduced by the exceptions stipulated in Article 2 and Article 49 of the PTUN Law. The provisions of Article 3 of the Administrative Court Law No. 5 of 1986 on negative fictitious could potentially no longer be enforced since the enactment of Article 53 of the AP Law which stipulates positive fictitious. Since the promulgation of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (hereinafter referred to as AP Law) on 17 October 2014, there has been a change in the legal criteria from the government written stipulation (beschikkingen) which was initially restrictive and can be sued to the PTUN, yet it has recently become extensive (which was originally mere beschkking, currently it almost covers all variations of besluiten). With the enactment of the AP Law, there will be an expansion of absolute competence and objects of state administration disputes, as stipulated in Article 87 of the AP Law which includes: first, Government Administration Decrees, as stipulated in Article 1 point 7 of the AP Law; second, Government Administration Actions Based on Article 1 point 8 of the AP Law. Furthermore, with the enactment of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and the Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD), the judicial power shall transfer from the General Court to the State Administrative Court. This crucial matter continues to be the groundwork and reason for conducting the current research entitled the expansion of the state administration dispute object after the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and the supreme court regulation (Perma) Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by the Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD). Conducted through normative juridical research method, this research-based paper examined the interviews through judges at PTUN Jakarta and Bandung and the main data source within this qualitative analysis serves as the secondary data or literature data.

scholarly journals The Implementation of Supreme Court Regulations Number 1/2016 Concerning The Procedure of In-Court Mediation on Economy Sharia Dispute (A Case Study in Blitar Religious Court)

Khatulistiwa ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-42
Author(s):  
Kutbuddin Aibak
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Mediation Process ◽  
Resolution Process ◽  
Dispute Resolution Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Mediation

The sharia economic dispute resolution process in Indonesia has two paths which can be taken by litigants, namely litigation in court and non-litigation. This research was motivated by sharia economic dispute cases handled by Blitar Religious Court which were carried out through a mediation but failed. The failure of this mediation process and the factors behind the failure are important issues to be studied. Consequently, Supreme Court Regulation No. 1/2016 becomes important to be used as the basis of analysis, whether this regulation has been implemented or not. Therefore, this study aims to describe and analyze the implementation of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1/2016 concerning the procedure of in-court mediation on economy sharia disputes in Blitar Religious Court, along with various obstacles and solutions.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

Summary of Results

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Networked Economy

The persuasive force of the accepted account’s property logic has driven antitrust and intellectual property law jurisprudence for at least the past three decades. It has been through the theory of trademark ownership and the commercial strategy of branding that these laws led the courts to comprehend markets as fundamentally bifurcated—as operating according to discrete types of interbrand and intrabrand competition—a division that had an effect far beyond the confines of trademark law and resonates today in the way government agencies and courts evaluate the emerging challenges of the networked economy along the previously introduced distinction between intertype and intratype competition. While the government in its appeal to the Supreme Court in ...

scholarly journals The Constitution as a Code of Honor

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Faith Commitment ◽  
The Government

This article argues that the Senate’s refusal to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should be deemed unconstitutional. The Senate’s stonewalling disrespected the institutional needs of the judiciary, violated the constitutional norm of forbearance in the exercise of power, and assumed a Senate role in the appointments process that was never intended. Although no court would ever enjoin a recalcitrant President to make a nomination or an obstructionist Senate to meet with, deliberate over, or vote on a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court or anything else, the President’s and the Senators’ oaths to “support the Constitution” should be understood as entailing a good faith commitment to enabling the government to function.

scholarly journals Pergeseran Rezim Sistem Pemilihan Kepala Daerah di Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-376
Author(s):  
Ahmad Mirza Safwandy ◽  
Husni Jalil ◽  
Moh Nur Rasyid
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election System ◽  
Electoral Regime ◽  
Election Fraud ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

Penelitian ini bertujuan menguraikan pergeseran sistem pemilihan kepala daerah dari rezim pemilihan umum ke rezim Pemerintahan Daerah. Pergeseran ini berdampak kepada peralihan kewenangan penyelesaian sengketa dari Mahkamah Konstitusi ke Mahkamah Agung sebagai konsekuensi Putusan MK Nomor 97/PUU–XI/2013. Putusan MK berimpilikasi kepada sistem pemilihan kepala daerah (Pilkada) yang berada di rezim pemilihan umum beralih ke rezim pemerintahan daerah, setelah putusan tersebut undang-undang mengamanatkan pembentukan peradilan khusus Pilkada yang berada di bawah kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan bertumpu pada studi dokumen berupa bahan hukum. Penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa meski tidak lagi menjadi kewenangan MK untuk mengadili perkara Pilkada, MK masih mengadili sengketa Pilkada hingga peradilan khusus Pilkada terbentuk. Peradilan khusus Pilkada selain mengadili sengketa hasil dapat mengadili sengketa proses, terkait sengketa administrasi Pilkada, sengketa Pidana Pilkada termasuk mengadili perihal election fraud dan corrupt campaign practice. Sistem penyelesaian sengketa Pilkada dilakukan melalui satu atap, sehingga tidak terjadi tumpang tindih putusan seperti yang terjadi selama ini. Shifting of Regime on Regional  Election System in Indonesia This study aims to describe the shift of the regional election system from the general election regime to the regional district regime. The shift has an impact on the tranfer of authority to resolve disputes from Constitutional Court to Supreme Court as a consequence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013. The decision implied to the regional election system (Pilkada) which was in the electoral regime moved to the regional government regime, after the ruling mandated the establishment of a special election court under the authority of the Supreme Court. This research uses a normative juridical approach by analyzing law documents. The research concluded that although adjudicating of regional election disputes was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, but the Court still adjudicate election disputes until a special court was formed. In addition to adjudicating disputes over results, the Election Special Court can also adjudicate election disputes related to process, administrative, criminal disputes including hearing about election fraud and corrupt campaign practice. Pilkada dispute resolution system is done through one roof, so there is no overlapping of decisions as has happened so far. 

scholarly journals PENGAKUAN TERHADAP PIHAK NON-ADVOKAT DALAM PEMBERIAN BANTUAN HUKUM (Politik Hukum Bantuan Hukum Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia)

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 399
Author(s):  
Akmal Adicahya
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
State Law ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Student

Access to justice is everyone rights that have to be fulfilled by the government. The regulation number 16 year 2011 of legal aid is an instrument held by the government to guarantee the right. The regulation allowed the participation of non-advocates to provide the legal aid. Through this policy, government emphasizes that:1) Indonesia is a state law which legal aid is an obliged instrument; 2) the prohibition of non-advocate to participate in legal aid is not relevant due to inadequate amount of advocate and citizen seek for justice (justiciabelen), and the advocate is not widely extended throughout Indonesia; 3) Non-Advocates, especially lecturer and law student are widely spread; 4) there are no procedural law which prohibits non-advocate to provide a legal aid. Those conditions are enough argument for government to strengthen the participation of non-advocates in providing legal aid. Especially for The Supreme Court to revise The Book II of Guidance for Implementing Court’s Job and Administration.Keywords: legal aid, non-advocate, justice

Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism: Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (04) ◽  
pp. 854-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raul A. Sanchez Urribarri
Keyword(s):  
Social Control ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Theoretical Discussion ◽  
Hybrid Regimes ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Intervention ◽  
The Government

This article offers a theoretical discussion about courts in “hybrid regimes” that evolve from formerly democratic countries. The evolution toward authoritarianism typically allows governments more latitude to reduce judicial independence and judicial power. Yet, several reasons, including legitimacy costs, a tradition of using courts for judicial adjudication and social control, and even the use of courts for quenching dissent may discourage rulers from shutting down the judicial contestation arena and encourage them instead to appeal to less overbearing measures. This usually leads to a decline of the judiciary's proclivity to challenge the government, especially in salient cases. To illustrate these dynamics, I discuss the rise and fall of judicial power in Venezuela under Chávez's rule, focusing on the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. Formerly the most powerful institution in the country's history, the Chamber briefly emerged as an influential actor at the beginning of the regime, but a comprehensive intervention of the judiciary in 2004 further politicized the court and effectively reduced its policy-making role.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document