Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Resolusi Konflik Cidera Janji (Wanprestasi) pada Akad Murābaḥah: Studi Analitis Putusan PA Tigaraksa No. 4418/Pdt.G/2023

Abstract

This research is a type of qualitative research in the form of a case study with a normative juridical approach, which involves analyzing the Law, as well as a case approach. The research results show that: First, based on formal and material legal considerations, Decision 4418/Pdt.G/2023/PA.Tgrs confirms that the Defendant committed default in murābaḥah financing. The judge partially granted the Plaintiff's claim for the Defendant's negligence in paying installments, while part of the claim was rejected because the Defendant did not have a job. The judge imposed sanctions, including paying the remaining principal debt, transferring the risk on the land and building, and paying court costs to the Plaintiff. The judge's decision is in accordance with the principles of civil procedural law and the consequences of default regulated by Article 1267 of the Civil Code. Second, in the Tigaraksa Religious Court Decision Number 4418/Pdt.G/2023/PA.Tgrs, the judge refers to the National Sharia Council Fatwa which is less relevant. The more appropriate fatwa is the National Sharia Council Fatwa 04/DSN-MUI/IV/2000 on Murābaḥah and the National Sharia Council Fatwa 153/DSN-MUI/VI/2022 on Repayment of Murābaḥah Financing Debt Before Maturity. However, judges cannot be held legally accountable for their decisions, in order to maintain judicial independence. Judges in Indonesia cannot be criminalized for their decisions, strengthening their freedom and autonomy in carrying out judicial duties.