Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) mempunyai tugas menyelenggarakan urusan pemerintahandi bidang pertanahan, dapat bertindak secara administratif menyelesaikan sengketa pertanahan yang menjadi kewenangannya dan selain kewenangannya. Peraturan Kepala BPN No.11 Tahun 2016 merupakan dasar kewenangan BPN menjadi mediator membantu para pihak mencari berbagai kemungkinan penyelesaian sengketa tanpa menggunakan cara memutus atau memaksakan sebuah penyelesaian. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan analisis data bersifat yuridis kualitatif. Objek penelitian ini yaitu sengketa tanah yang menjadi kewenangan BPN. Dalam hal mediasi berhasil dicapai kesepakatan dituangkan dalam perjanjian perdamaian ditandatangani oleh para pihak dan mediator, juga dibuat Berita Acara Pelaksanaan Mediasi yang ditandatangani oleh mediator. Perjanjian perdamaian yang dicapai melalui mediasi oleh mediator BPN semata-mata hanya merupakan alat bukti tertulis dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat untuk dilaksanakan.
Customary inheritance law in Indonesia consists of unique and specific patterns that describe the values of traditional Indonesian society that are based on collective and communal culture. There are three types of customary inheritance system: patrilineal, matrilineal, and parental. Every system has a uniqueness that makes it different with others. These differences often cause disputes and problems. The problems are related especially to the status of men and women in relation to patriarchal and matriarchal systems. Settlement of inheritance is done through discussion, approval, or legal remedies. Judges' decisions indicate that there is a renewal on the customary inheritance system in which men and women have equal opportunities to become inheritors of their parents.
Industrial relations disputes can be resolved through court (litigation) and out of court (non litigation) as stipulated in Law Number 2 of 2016 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI). From the formal legal aspect governing the settlement of industrial relations disputes is the Law Civil Procedure that applies in the General Court, which is usually complicated and long. Usually for litigation at the District Court level, at least the workers/litigants must meet for 8 to 10 days. Padang District Court in the IA Class in order to achieve the principle of Civil Procedure Law Fast, Simple and Low Cost made a breakthrough with the success in bringing a decision on peace in industrial relations disputes in the past 4 years. The author is interested whether this Peace ruling does not contradict Article 4 of PERMA Number 1 of 2016 and does not confl ict with statutory regulations and has permanent legal force. The method used in this research is normative juridical analysis of facts that exist systematically. The results of the research and discussion showed that Article 4 of PERMA Number 1 of 2016 is doubly meaningful, so that the Peace Decision in the Padang District Court of Class IA is not in confl ict with the laws and regulations and has permanent legal force. The factors causing peace in the Padang Industrial Relations Court, namely Article 4 PERMA Number 1 of 2016 has a double meaning, so that the Padang Industrial Relations Court refers to Article 130 HIR, there is pressure on the bipartite process, mediation in the employment service is less than optimal, the parties those who disputed want peace to be carried out in the industrial relations court, the panel of judges considered that disputes were very possible to be carried out peacefully, and to reduce the accumulation of cases in the court.
ABSTRAKBerdasarkan sistem hukum acara perdata yang berlaku, hakim terikat pada alat-alat bukti yang sah, yang berarti bahwa hakim hanya boleh menjatuhkan putusan berdasarkan alat-alat bukti yang ditentukan oleh undang-undang saja sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 164 HIR. Di samping itu juga alat bukti pemeriksaan setempat sebagaimana dan keterangan saksi ahli Hukum pembuktian yang berlaku saat ini, secara formal belum mengakomodasi dokumen elektronik sebagai alat bukti, sedangkan dalam praktiknya di masyarakat melalui transaksi perdagangan secara elektronik, alat bukti elektronik sudah banyak digunakan, terutama dalam transaksi bisnis modern. Tulisan ini menghasilkan simpulan bahwa dalam hal memeriksa perkara yang pembuktiannya menggunakan bukti-bukti bersifat elektronik, karena hukum acara perdata (HIR) sebagai hukum formil tidak mengaturnya, maka hakim dapat mendasarkan pembuktian pada hukum materiil yang juga mengatur tentang hukum acara, dalam hal ini Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik atau Undang-undang Dokumen Perusahaan. Akan tetapi seandainya pun tidak ada peraturan materil yang mengatur tentang bukti elektronik sebagai alat bukti yang sah dipersidangan, atau hakim tidak mau mendasarkan pembuktian pada hukum materiil, hakim dapat melakukan penemuan hukum dengan cara analogi atau penafsiran hukum terhadap bukti yang bersifat elektronik agar dapat digunakan sebagai alat bukti di persidangan sebagaimana halnya alat bukti yang diatur dalam hukum acara perdata.Kata kunci: bukti elektronik; pembuktian; penemuan hukum. ABSTRACTAccording to the Civil Procedural Law system, the judges were bound to the legal evidences, which meant that the judges might only impose the verdict based on legal evidences which determined by the law as stated in Article 164 HIR for instances: documentary evidence, witness’ statement, allegation, recognition, and oath. In addition, the local inspection as legal evidence was also regulated in Article 153 HIR, and the expert statement stipulated in Article 154 HIR. The current of evidentiary law, was not accommodating electronic documents yet as legal evidence, while in fact electronic trading transactions among societies needed electronic evidence had been widely used, especially in modern business transactions. The problem was how the judge conducted a legal discovery in giving verdict in lawsuit dispute which was handled to use electronic evidence as legal evidence, in the other hand, according to the Civil Procedural Law system stated that evidentiary was legitimate when done using the evidence that had been determined/regulated in the Civil Procedural Regulation.Keywords: electronic evidence; evidentiary; legal discovery.
Civil case request civil request limitation ratio legis could only be done once in order to create legal certainty as an effort to establish law and justice as law enforcer to maintain, enforce, and implement the norms in law. The concept of civil matters reconsideration petition settlement that promotes fairness and legal certainty in order to update the National Civil Procedures Law is second, to different parties in the case which request civil not yet conducted, the request civil is final and binding. Request civil is only allowed against yudex factie verdict and the application of the model through a combination of restriction and discreation procedural model.IntisariRatio legis pembatasan permohonan upaya hukum PK perkara perdata hanya dapat dilakukan satu kali demi mewujudkan kepastian hukum sebagai upaya pembentuk undang-undang dan peradilan sebagai penegak hukum untuk menjaga, menegakan dan menjalankan ketentuan norma dalam undang-undang. Konsep pengaturan permohonan PK perkara perdata berbasis keadilan dan kepastian hukum dalam rangka pembaruan hukum acara perdata nasional adalah pemberian PK kedua kepada pihak berbeda dalam perkara yang belum melakukan PK serta PK ini bersifat final dan mengikat, Peninjauan Kembali hanya diperbolehkan terhadap putusan judex factie dan penerapan model kombinasi antara pembatasan melalui model prosedural dan diskresional.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.