Reconciliation as Problem Solution of Sharia Economic Dispute in Religious Court

Abstract

Since the decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 93 / PUU-X / 2012, which states that sharia economic disputes resolution is the absolute authority of the Religious Courts. Of course, this authority requires law as a tool in resolving sharia economic disputes in both formal and material law. The reality is that the use of procedural law in sharia economic dispute resolution applies civil procedural law as it employs general courts. This raises problems for Religious Court Judges. As a Muslim, it would be against his conscience. Resolving sharia disputes, but must use the procedural law inherited from the Dutch colonialists which are contradictory to Islamic law. For this reason, as a solution to these problems, peace is the best choice for resolving sharia economic disputes as long as there is no Islamic judicial procedure law to be applied in the Indonesian Religious Court. This solution for this advantage answers doubts about the use of civil procedural law. Reconciliation is very good and recommended, as ordered by the religion of Islam. Even though there are differences between civil procedural law in general courts and Islamic judicial procedural law, there is no difference in the context of good peace, both of them prioritize the settlement of a dispute by well-disposed means which is the best solution to be accepted by all parties without hostility.

Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah Menurut Fatwa Dewan Syariah Nasional-Majelis Ulama Indonesia (DSN-MUI)

“…Adapun konsekuensi hukumnya adalah kewenangan lembaga non-litigasi dan lembaga litigasi di luar peradilan agama dalam penjelasan tersebut dihapuskan secara konstitusi. Hal itu membuat kedudukan kompetensi peradilan agama sebagai satu-satunya lembaga di jalur litigasi yang memiliki kewenangan secara absolut untuk memutus perkara ekonomi syariah 26 . Namun apabila terdapat kesepakatan di antara para pihak untuk tidak menyelesaikan perselisihannya di pengadilan agama, maka para pihak hanya dapat memilih forum penyelesaian sengketanya secara non-litigasi dengan syarat kesepakatan pemilihan forum penyelesaiannya tertulis terlebih dahulu dalam akta perjanjian dan pemilihan forum penyelesaian sengketa yang dipilih tentunya tidak bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip syariah 27 .…”

Dynamics of Sharia Economic Dispute Resolution Regulations in the Sociology of Law

“…The legal consequences of the issuance of the Constitutional Court's decision are the explanation of article 55 (2), which gives authority to nonlitigation institutions and litigation institutions outside the religious courts, their authority is abolished in the constitution. This makes the position of competence of the religious courts the only institution in the litigation path that has absolute authority to decide sharia economic dispute cases (Heriyah and Santiago, 2021). However, if there is an agreement between the parties not to settle their dispute in a religious court, then the parties can only choose a dispute resolution forum outside the religious court (non-litigation) on the condition that the agreement on the selection of the settlement forum is written in advance in the deed of agreement and the selection of a settlement forum.…”

Export Performance Improvement Strategy Indonesia During The Pandemic

“…At the time of lowering the growth projections, it was not yet known that around the end of 2019 the Covid-19 pandemic would emerge which would have an even more devastating impact on the global economic order. [2] Even though world economic growth at that time was projected to slow down, many economists in Indonesia were still very optimistic that Indonesia's economic growth would increase, arguing that the economic order in Indonesia was considered quite resilient to slowing world economic turmoil. [3] Before the pandemic, it was estimated that Indonesia's economic growth would increase by 5.1 to 5.5% in 2020, inflation was estimated to be controlled according to the target in the range of 3%, and the current account deficit was in the range of 2.75%.…”