The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
PERBEDAAN PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PUTUSAN WANPRESTASI STUDI KASUS PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DAN PENGADILAN TINGGI AGAMA YOGYAKARTA
This research is a comparative and critical case study analyzing the disparity in rulings concerning Ijrāh Multijāsa financing default disputes between the Bantul Religious Court (No. 1171/Pdt.G/2023/PA.Btl) and the Yogyakarta High Religious Court (No. 1/Pdt.G/2024/PTA.Yk). The study aims to answer three core questions: (1) Why are there different legal interpretation paradigms in the two rulings? (2) How adequate and successful are the paradigms applied by the courts in realizing the principles of Maqāṣid Syarī‘ah? (3) What are the juridical implications of these differences on legal certainty (rechtszekerheid) and jurisprudential consistency? The research employs a comparative juridical-normative method, analyzed through Sudikno Mertokusumo's Legal Interpretation Theory (for classifying rechtsvinding) and Jasser Auda's Systemic Maqāṣid Syarī‘ah Theory (for philosophical evaluation). The primary findings indicate that the difference in rulings stems from contrasting methodological interpretations. The first-tier judges (Bantul Religious Court) tend to use a legalistic-formal approach, prioritizing Grammatical Interpretation and strictly adhering to contract texts and non-comprehensive positive regulations, leading to the explicit rejection of monetary sanctions (ta‘zīr). Conversely, the appellate judges (Yogyakarta High Religious Court) employ a more progressive teleological-sociological approach, integrating maqāṣid syarī‘ah into their interpretation to balance the protection of Sharia capital (Ḥifẓ al-Māl) with substantive justice (al-‘Adl), resulting in the affirmation of collateral execution and the justification of ta‘zīr sanctions in line with DSN-MUI Fatwas. A critical evaluation using Jasser Auda’s framework concludes that the Yogyakarta High Religious Court’s ruling is more shahih (valid) and purposeful. This ruling successfully fulfills Auda's principles of Wholeness and Multi-dimensionality by viewing the objectives of Sharia law systematically, whereas the formalistic approach of the Bantul Religious Court is deemed partial and potentially weakens Ḥifẓ al-Māl for the Islamic Financial Institutions as creditors. The juridical implications of this contestation in interpretative paradigms are highly significant, leading to the erosion of legal certainty (rechtszekerheid) and jurisprudential inconsistency within the Religious Court system. This research underscores the necessity for the standardization of legal interpretation methodology among religious court judges. It is recommended that the Supreme Court (MA) provide structured guidelines and training emphasizing the consistent integration of Modern Legal Interpretation Theory and Jasser Auda’s Maqāṣid Syarī‘ah Philosophy to ensure that judicial rulings are not only formally sound but also substantively just, thereby supporting the development of a healthy and sustainable Sharia economic ecosystem in Indonesia.
FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
PERBEDAAN PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PUTUSAN WANPRESTASI STUDI KASUS PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DAN PENGADILAN TINGGI AGAMA YOGYAKARTA (Text)
PERBEDAAN PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PUTUSAN WANPRESTASI STUDI KASUS PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DAN PENGADILAN TINGGI AGAMA YOGYAKARTA (Other)
HTML Summary of #74927 PERBEDAAN PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PUTUSAN WANPRESTASI STUDI KASUS PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DAN PENGADILAN TINGGI AGAMA YOGYAKARTA