BKG

Yasin, MohamadNur (2012) Rekonstruksi Norma Eksekusi Putusan Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional dalam Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah di Indonesia. Doctor thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.

Indonesian Abstract

Sengketa ekonomi syariah di Indonesia muncul seiring dengan perkembangan ekonomi syariah. Penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah dapat dilakukan melalui non-litigation , musyawarah, mediasi perbankan, dan arbitrase. Penyelesaian juga bisa dilakukan melalui litigation di Peradilan Agama. Penyelesaian sengketa melalui Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional (Basyarnas) memunculkan konflik norma kewenangan eksekusi putusan Basyarnas. Menurut Pasal 49 UU No 3 Th 2006 Tentang Perubahan atas UU No 7 Th 1989 Tentang Peradilan Agama, penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah dilakukan Peradilan Agama. Menurut Pasal 55 UU No 21 Th 2008 tentang Perbankan Syariah, penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah oleh Peradilan Agama dan Peradilan Umum. Sedangkan menurut Pasal 59 serta Penjelasan Pasal 59 UU No 48 Th 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, eksekusi putusan Basyarnas sebagai bagian dari penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah dilakukan Peradilan Umum. Konflik norma ini menunjukkan ada kelemahan filosofis, historis, politis, dan yuridis. Juga, menyebabkan tujuan hukum berupa keadilan, kepastian hukum, dan manfaat tidak berjalan optimal. Sehingga perlu dilakukan rekonstruksi norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas dalam sengketa ekonomi syariah di Indonesia. Berdasarkan latar belakang di atas, ada tiga permasalahan penting. Pertama , mengapa Pasal 59 UU Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 digunakan sebagai acuan eksekusi putusan Basyarnas dalam sengketa ekonomi syariah di Indonesia, sedangkan Pasal 49 UU Nomor 3 Tahun 2006 dan Pasal 55 UU Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 dikesampingkan. Kedua , apakah norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas telah sesuai dengan tujuan hukum. Ketiga , bagaimana asas-asas penyelesaian konflik norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas dalam sengketa ekonomi syariah di Indonesia. Disertasi ini menggunakan lima teori. Pertama , teori maqashid al-syariah . Teori ini memayungi seluruh teori yang dipakai dalam disertasi ini. Kedua , teori politik hukum, untuk menganalis konsep filsafati, historis, politis, dan yuridis guna menjawab rumusan masalah pertama. Ketiga , teori tujuan hukum dan teori kewenangan, untuk menganalisis proses, substansi, dan relevansi norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas dengan tujuan hukum serta menjawab rumusan masalah kedua. Keempat , teori perundang-undangan, untuk menganalisis asas hukum Islam dan hukum perdata yang diangkat menjadi asas penyelesaian konflik norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas dan menjawab rumusan masalah ketiga. Analisis menggunakan bahan hukum primer, skunder, dan tersier. Proses analisis bahan hukum dimulai dari mengkaji norma eksekusi putusan arbitrase di Indonesia dan di luar negeri, prinsip hukum Islam dalam al-Quran, Hadis, fiqh, dan Ushul Fiqh dilanjutkan kajian perundangan-undangan untuk menggali asas dari semua konsep tersebut, kelebihan dan kekurangan setiap sistem hukum untuk ditemukan asas penyelesaian konflik norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas. Menggunakan penalaran hukum yang logis dan sistemik, interpretasi hukum, metode bayani dan hermeneutika hukum. Sehingga, dapat dimaknai latar belakang, tujuan, dan konstruksi asas bagi norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas. Menggunakan metode di atas, diperoleh beberapa temuan. Pertama , Penggunaan Pasal 59 UU No 48 Th 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dan pengesampingan Pasal 49 UU No 3 Th 2006 Tentang Perubahan atas UU No 7 Th 1989 Tentang Peradilan Agama serta Pasal 55 UU No 21 Th 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah sebagai acuan eksekusi putusan Basyarnas dilandasi argumentasi filsafati, historis, politis, dan yuridis. A rgumentasi filsafati , bahwa substansi Pasal 59 UU No 48 Th 2009 Tentang kekuasaan Kehakiman tidak dijiwai oleh (a) nilai spiritual dalam semangat posmodernisme dan hukum Illahi, (b) prinsip-prinsip kemaslahatan, (c) ketundukan pada hukum, dan (d) semangat nation building Pancasila bidang hukum ekonomi syariah. Argumentasi historis, bahwa n orma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas disemangati oleh (a) inkonsistensi sejarah kompetensi absolut Peradilan Agama, (b) ketidakjelasan pemisahan kompetensi absolut antara Peradilan Agama dan Peradilan Umum, (c) ketidakselarasan terhadap prinsip independensi peradilan satu atap. Argumentasi politis, bahwa norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas diwarnai oleh (a) dualisme penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah, (b) intervensi pemerintah, (c) pemberlakuan teori resepsi, dan (d) pelestarian konflik norma. Argumentasi yuridis, bahwa pemberian kewenangan kepada Peradilan Agama dan Peradilan Umum menggambarkan pengakomodasian yang tidak komprehensif terhadap nilai agama dan budaya masyarakat. Sehingga tidak meyakinkan publik sebagai akibat choice of forum dan choice of law . Kedua , relevansi norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas dengan tujuan hukum bersifat semu. Hal ini tampak pada tiga asas dalam tujuan hukum. Asas keadilan, bahwa proses perumusan norma relevan dengan keadilan moral, keadilan sosial, keadilan hukum, keadilan prosedural, keadilan substantif, keadilan distributif, dan keadilan komutatif. Tetapi, substansi norma hanya relevan dengan keadilan hukum dan keadilan komutatif. Asas kepastian hukum , bahwa norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas tidak relevan dengan (a) kepastian aturan, karena terlalu mengedepankan positivisasi hukum rasional, (b) kepastian kelembagaan, karena benturan rezim hukum, (c) kepastian mekanisme, karena interdependensi antar peradilan selevel, (d) kepastian waktu dan prediksi, karena tersandera konflik norma. Asas manfaat , bahwa substansi norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas tidak relevan dengan (a) kesenangan, karena memberi kesenangan pada satu pihak dan tidak pada yang lain, (b) Kebaikan, karena mengandung reduksi norma, dan (c) kebahagiaan, karena memunculkan kegamangan pengembangan hukum ekonomi syariah. Ketiga , ada dua asas penyelesaian konflik norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas. Asas konsistensi. Asas ini berkonsekuensi pada (a) revisi Pasal 55 dan Penjelasan Pasal 55 UU No 21 Th 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah, (b) revisi Pasal 59 dan Penjelasan Pasal 59 UU No 48 Th 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, dan (c) pencabutan SEMA No 08 Th 2010 sekaligus pemberlakuan lagi SEMA No 08 Th 2008. Asas wajib menghindari otoriterianisme norma positif elitis. Inti dari asas ini adalah pengendalian nafsu berkuasa agar tidak terjadi otoriterianisme, hegemoni, dan tirani di dalam substansi norma eksekusi putusan Basyarnas oleh UU No 48 Th 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman terhadap UU No 3 Th 2006 Tentang Perubahan atas UU No 7 Th 1989 Tentang Peradilan Agama dan UU No

English Abstract

Sharia economics disputes in Indonesia arise with the development of sharia economics. Disputes seattlement of sharia economics may trough a non-litigation, deliberation, banking mediation, and arbitration. It could be also through litigation at the Religious Court. Disputes seattlement through the National Sharia Arbitration Body (Basyarnas) led to the conflict of norm of authority of Basyarnas decision execution. According to Article 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006 On the Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1989 On the Religious Court, disputes seattlement of sharia economics held by Religious Courts. According to Article 55 of Law No 21 of 2008 on The Sharia Banking, disputes seattlement of sharia economics by the Religious Court and The General Court. Meanwhile, according to Article 59 and the explanation of Article 59 of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial authority, the execution of the Basyarnas decision as part of the disputes resolution of sharia economics conducted by the General Court. This conflict of norm shows that there is philosophical, historical, political, and juridical weakness. It also shows that the legal purposes such as justice, rule of law, and the benefits are not running optimally. So, we need the norm reconstruction of execution of Basyarnas decision to sharia economics disputes in Indonesia. Based on the aforementioned background, there are three important issues. First, why Article 59 of Law No 48 of 2009 were used as the reference for the execution of the Basyarnas decision in sharia economics disputes in Indonesia, while Article 49 of Law No 3 of 2006 and article 55 of Law No 21 of 2008 ruled out. Second, is the norm of execution of Basyarnas decision in accordance with the legal objectives. Third, what are the conflict of norm resolution principles of execution of Basyarnas decision in sharia economics disputes in Indonesia. This dissertation applies five theories. First , the theory of maqasid al-Sharia. This theory is an overarching the whole theory used in this dissertation. Second , the legal political theory, to analyze the concept of philosophical, historical, political, and juridical formulation to address the first problem. Third , the theory of legal purpose and the theory of authority, to analyze the process, substance, and relevance of norm of execution of Basyarnas decision and legal purpose to answer the second research question. Fourth , the regulatory theory, to analyze the principles of Islamic law and civil law which are appointed as the principle of norm conflict resolution of Basyarnas decision execution and to answer the third research question. Analysis uses primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The analysis process of legal materials begins from reviewing the norm of execution of arbitral decision in Indonesia and overseas countries, the principles of Islamic law in al-Quran, Hadith, Fiqh and Usul Fiqh,then it is continued to legislation studies to explore the principles of all these concepts, advantages and disadvantages of each legal system to find the principle of conflict of norm resolution of the execution of Basyarnas decision. This work uses systemic and logical legal reasoning, legal interpretations, bayani methods as well as legal hermeneutics. Thus, it can be interpreted the background, the purpose, and the construction of the foundation for the norm of execution of Basyarnas decision. Applying the aforementioned method, several findings are obtained. First , the use of Article 59 of Law No. 48 of 2009 About Judicial Power and the waiver of Article 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006 On the Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1989 On the Religious Court and Article 55 of Law No 21 of 2008 On Sharia Banking, as reference for the execution of Basyarnas decision is based on philosophical, historical, political, and juridical argument. Philosophical argument , that the substance of Article 59 of Law No. 48 of 2009 About the Judicial Power was not informed by (a) spiritual values in the spirit of postmodern and divine law, (b) the principles of maslahah, (c) the power under the law, and (d) the spirit of Pancasila nation building in the field of sharia economic law. Historical argument , that the norm of execution of Basyarnas decision encouraged by (a) historical inconsistencies of absolute competence of the Religious Court, (b) separation obscurity of absolute competences between the Religious Court and General Court, (c) the unconformity to the independence principle of integrated justice system. Political argument , that the norm of execution of Basyarnas decision characterized by (a) the dualism of sharia economic dispute resolution, (b) government intervention, (c) the application of reception theory, and (d) the preservation of norm conflict. Legal argument , that the granting of authority to the Religious Court and General Court did not describe a comprehensive acceptance to the religious and cultural values. So it does not convince the public as a result of choice of forum and choice of law. Second , the relevance of the norm of execution of Basyarnas decision and the legal purpose is apparent. It can be seen in the three principles in the legal purpose. The principle of justice , that the process of norm formulating is relevant with moral justice, social justice, legal justice, procedural justice, substantive justice, distributive justice, and commutative justice. However, the substance of norm is only relevant to the legal justice and commutative justice. The principle of legal certainty , that the norm of execution of Basyarnas decision are irrelevant to (a) the certainty of the rule, because it focuses more on rational law positivisation, (b) institutional certainty, because of conflict of laws regime, (c) certainty mechanism, because it is interdependence between the same level of court, (d ) certainty of time and predictions, because it s bound by the conflict norm. The principle of benefits , that the substance of the norm of execution of Basyarnas decision are irrelevant to (a) pleasure, because it gave pleasure to one side and not on the other, (b) goodness, because it contains norms reduction, and (c) happiness, because it led to dizziness of the development of sharia economic law. Third , there are two principles of conflict of norm resolution of execution of Basyarnas decision. The principle of consistency . This principle is consequential on (a) the revision of Article 55 and the explanation of Article 55 o

Other Language Abstract

UNSPECIFIED

Item Type: Thesis (Doctor)
Identification Number: DES/347.09/YAS/r/061205957
Subjects: 300 Social sciences > 347 Procedure and courts > 347.09 Dispute resolution
Divisions: S2 / S3 > Doktor Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum
Depositing User: Endro Setyobudi
URI: http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/160939
Full text not available from this repository.

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item