Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Dalam hukum positif Indonesia, gugatan class action baru diakui sejak tahun 1997 melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 1997 Tentang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. Setelah undang-undang ini, tercatat ada 3 (tiga) Undang- Undang yang secara eksplisit mengakui mengenai gugatan class action yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 Tentang Perlindungan Konsumen, Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jasa Konstruksi, dan Undang-Undang Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 Tentang Kehutanan. Saat ini penerapan penggunaan mekanisme gugatan class action baru diatur dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2002. Dalam PERMA Nomor 1 Tahun 2002 diatur bahwa wakil kelas tidak memerlukan surat kuasa dari anggota kelompok dalam mengajukan gugatan di pengadilan. Ketentuan ini pada umumnya menjadi salah satu peluang bagi tergugat untuk mengajukan keberatan terhadap penggunaan mekanisme gugatan class action, dengan alasan dalam hukum acara perdata yaitu HIR yang kedudukannya setingkat undang-undang ditentukan bahwa untuk bertindak di pengadilan mewakili orang/pihak lain, maka harus ada surat kuasa khusus dari pihak yang diwakilinya. Dalam gugatan class action yang diajukan oleh korban tabrakan kereta api di Brebes tanggal 25 Desember 2001, pengadilan dengan tegas telah mengakui kedudukan para penggugat selaku wakil kelas dan telah mengadili perkara dengan menggunakan mekanisme gugatan class action.

---

In Indonesia's positive law, class action lawsuits have only been recognized since 1997 through Law Number 23 of 1997 concerning Environmental Management. After this law, there are 3 (three) laws that explicitly recognize class action lawsuits, namely Law No. 8/1999 on Consumer Protection, Law No. 18/1999 on Construction Services, and Law No. Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry. Currently, the application of the use of a class action lawsuit mechanism is only regulated in Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2002. In PERMA Number 1 of 2002 it is regulated that class representatives do not require a power of attorney from group members to file a lawsuit in court. This provision is generally an opportunity for the defendant to file an objection to the use of the class action lawsuit mechanism, on the grounds that in civil procedural law, namely HIR whose position is at the level of the law, it is determined that to act in court on behalf of another person/party, a letter must be issued. special power of attorney from the party he represents. In the class action lawsuit filed by the victims of the train crash in Brebes on December 25, 2001, the court has firmly acknowledged the position of the plaintiffs as class representatives and has tried the case using a class action lawsuit mechanism."

"Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok telah menjadi bagian dari cara pengajuan gugatan di Indonesia sejak adanya Undang-undang Nomor 23 tahun 1997 tentang Lingkungan Hidup yang kemudian disusul dengan adanya Undang-undang Nomor 8 tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen dan Undang-undang 41 tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan. Dalam kurun waktu tersebut belum ada ketentuan yang mengatur acara memeriksa, megadili dan memutus gugatan yang diajukan sehingga terjadi kekosongan hukum. Untuk mengantisipasi hal tersebut, pada tanggal 26 April 2002 Mahkamah Agung mengeluarkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2002 tentang Acara Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok. Namun pada kenyataannya, penerapan dari prosedur pengajuan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok tidaklah mudah dan para penegak hukum di Indonesia masih perlu mengembangkan dan mempelajari lebih dalam. Khususnya permasalahan mengenai ukuran pemenuhan syarat-syarat pengajuan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok yang seringkali berbeda-beda,salah satu contohnya adalah dalam pemenuhan syarat-syarat pengajuan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok dalam perkara Nomor 75/PDT/G/2005/PN.JKT.PST. Perbedaan penafsiran antara penegak hukum dan kurangnya pengetahuan menjadi penghalang diciptakannya suatu Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok yang sesuai dengan proses pemeriksaan perkara pada tahap awal persidangan. Kurangnya kejelasan pengaturan pengajuan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok juga menjadi salah satu kendala dari tidak konsistennya proses pemeriksaan tahap awal Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok. Sesuai dengan Huruf F pada bagian menimbang Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 tahun 2002, bahwa Peraturan Mahkamah ini dibuat sambil menunggu peraturan perundang-undangan. Dengan demikian pengaturan tatacara Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok ini diharapkan dapat dituangkan dalam bentuk undang-undang yang lebih rinci dan jelas sehingga tidak terdapat kerancuan dan ketidakpastian hukum."

"Di Indonesia telah cukup banyak terjadi kasus yang melibatkan konsumen sebagai korban dalam jumlah yang massal. Contoh kasus biskuit beracun yang terjadi sekitar Oktober 1989 di kota Tangerang. Tegal, Palembang dan Jambi yang dalam kasus tersebut sebanyak 141 konsumen telah menjadi korban. Demikian juga pada Juni 1994 terjadi kasus mie instan yang menyebabkan 33 konsumen sebagai korban. Kemudian pada pertengahan tahun 2001 masyarakat konsumen Indonesia sempat dihebohkan dengan adanya kasus ajinomoto berkaitan dengan penggunaan bahan baku dalam proses pembuatan produk tersebut yang tidak memenuhi kriteria halal. Dari kasus-kasus tersebut menunjukkan bahwa konsumen membutuhkan suatu alternatif penyelesaian sengketa yang dapat memberikan perlindungan hukum terhadap hak-haknya. Karena itu adanya konsep class action yang diadopsi dari negara Anglo Saxon merupakan suatu jalan keluar untuk dapat diterapkan di Indonesia. Perlindungan hukum atas hak-hak konsumen telah diatur secara jelas di dalam Undang-Undang Perlindungan Konsumen (UUPK) yang telah memasukkan 8 macam hak konsumen termasuk hak untuk menerima kompensasi, ganti rugi, dan/atau penggantian. Demikian pula pelaku usaha yang melakukan pelanggaran terhadap hak-hak konsumen, UUPK telah mengatumya secara jelas dalam bentuk tanggung jawab hukum pelaku usaha. UUPK menganut prinsip tanggung jawab hukum pelaku usaha karena kesalahan dengan 2 modifikasi, Pertama, pelaku usaha bertanggung jawab dengan praduga lalai/salah dan kedua, pelaku usaha dianggap selalu bertanggung jawab dengan beban pembuktian terbalik. Pengaturan class action sebagai suatu alternatif penyelesaian sengketa konsumen telah diatur baik dari segi materialnya maupun segi prosedur atau formilnya, tetapi masih diperlukan adanya penyempurnaan. Implementasi penyelesaian sengketa konsumen melalui prosedur class action dalam praktek peradilan mengalami perkembangan dari waktu ke waktu. Sebelum adanya UUPK para pengacara telah mencoba prosedur class action namun keadilan masih belum berpihak pada konsumen. Pengadilan yang memeriksa dan memutus perkara class action tidak mengakui gugatan class action dengan alasan belum ada dasar hukumnya, masih dibutuhkan surat kuasa khusus sesuai dengan Pasal 123 HIR dan masih terjadi salah penafsiran antara class action dengan legal standing. Setelah adanya UUPK, pengadilan mulai mengakui class action dengan pengakuan kriteria gugatan perwakilan kelompok, pengakuan wakil kelas dan anggota kelas dan adanya usulan Komisi Pemberian Ganti Rugi Apabila dikaitkan dengan Undang-Undang 14 tahun 1970 maka peradilan mulai berusaha menerapkan prinsip peradilan yang sederhana, cepat, dan biaya ringan dan hakim yang memeriksa dan memutus perkara class action telah berusaha menggali nilai-nilai hukum dalam masyarakat"

"In its development of the last three years, there has been a new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction; i.e. public claims made using a class action procedure. The utilization of such a procedure has been made so frequently and obtained legal forces because it has got us opportunity and justification in a variety of Indonesian legislations; among other things: law no. 23, 1997 concerning environmental management, law no. 8, 1999 regarding consumer protection and law no. 41 governing forestry followed up by a litigation procedure through the supreme court?s regulation no. 1, 2002. such a regulation has bridged the concept and legal theory which is subsequently used to execute .civil dalm procedures since there has been a shift from using an individual model to using a representative one. before the supreme court issued this regulation, courts had always' rejected collective claims on the ground that Indonesias civil law, especially section 123 of hir, a revised indonesia's law, stated that such claims could be brought up their claimants or by hiring Iavvyers. without a special authorization, however, lawyers could not represent class interest to be in session of court now, on the basis of article 4 of supreme court regulation to represent a ciass interest, the representative is not required to have this special authorization from the group he represents. social groups having the some case shoulclnot bring their case individually to prevent a recurrent case from happening. this oollective claim, class action, can be made at a lower cost so that the general public may bring their claims to court. in addition, to void mutually controversial verdicts, when each individual make his own claim, class action constitutes to be a more effident procedure. class action as a litigation procedure has its historical, social and cultural background in the common law system. therefore, class action as an effort of civil law reform in Indonesia has a tendency toward the civil law system; from legal comparison viewpoint, lt requires brillian thoughts on the part of judges in order to implement the existing laws actively; let alone, when we consider that the supreme court regulation no. 1, 2002 is but a way of transferring on America or Australian model. on the other hand, class action as a legal protection over Indonesian communities can be exercised as a social control; i.e. as social norms against deviant behaviours and their effects that include prohibitions, demands, condemnation and compensation. dispude resolution procedures with regard to compensation over unlawful deeds in class action should be prepared in detail, covering mechanism of its distribution for all members of a class including suggestions on court proving or panel to help distribute compensation more smoothly. when a compensation demand is approved, a judge isobliged to decide in detail the class grouping, compensation distribution mechanism`and steps to be taken by class representatives such as the obligation of notification. among the frequent cases are environmental function recovery, waste management improvement, pollution source eradication, compensation for the affected group and attitudinal changes among law breakers.Besides, class action as a tool of social engineering, that is, when a gap between law and social change appears, should find its solution whereas class action as a social emancipation means the equal right among various aspects of social life.based on the fact that court decision in class action is binding to all, any interest group using this procedure should help reduce administrative problems. this new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction, public claims using a class action procedure, ls relevant to Frederick Calvert's theory. the people?s interest represented by a class action is in accordance with the theoiy of utilitarianism proposed by Jeremy Bentham. judges, accordingly, should make their decision on the basis of equilibrium principle between individual and collective interests as put forward by John Rawls In his theory of justice. rules are then needed to avoid a conflict of interests, between individual and collective ones. law as an umpire is indispensable."

"ABSTRAKin its development of the last three years, there has been a new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction; i.e. public claims made using a class action procedure. The utilization of such a procedure has been made so frequently and obtained legal forces because it has got us opportunity and justification in a variety of Indonesian legislations; among other things: law no. 23, 1997 concerning environmental management, law no. 8, 1999 regarding consumer protection and law no. 41 governing forestry followed up by a litigation procedure through the supreme court?s regulation no. 1, 2002. such a regulation has bridged the concept and legal theory which is subsequently used to execute .civil dalm procedures since there has been a shift from using an individual model to using a representative one. before the supreme court issued this regulation, courts had always' rejected collective claims on the ground that Indonesias civil law, especially section 123 of hir, a revised indonesia's law, stated that such claims could be brought up their claimants or by hiring Iavvyers. without a special authorization, however, lawyers could not represent class interest to be in session of court now, on the basis of article 4 of supreme court regulation to represent a ciass interest, the representative is not required to have this special authorization from the group he represents. social groups having the some case shoulclnot bring their case individually to prevent a recurrent case from happening. this oollective claim, class action, can be made at a lower cost so that the general public may bring their claims to court. in addition, to void mutually controversial verdicts, when each individual make his own claim, class action constitutes to be a more effident procedure. class action as a litigation procedure has its historical, social and cultural background in the common law system. therefore, class action as an effort of civil law reform in Indonesia has a tendency toward the civil law system; from legal comparison viewpoint, lt requires brillian thoughts on the part of judges in order to implement the existing laws actively; let alone, when we consider that the supreme court regulation no. 1, 2002 is but a way of transferring on America or Australian model. on the other hand, class action as a legal protection over Indonesian communities can be exercised as a social control; i.e. as social norms against deviant behaviours and their effects that include prohibitions, demands, condemnation and compensation. dispude resolution procedures with regard to compensation over unlawful deeds in class action should be prepared in detail, covering mechanism of its distribution for all members of a class including suggestions on court proving or panel to help distribute compensation more smoothly. when a compensation demand is approved, a judge isobliged to decide in detail the class grouping, compensation distribution mechanism`and steps to be taken by class representatives such as the obligation of notification. among the frequent cases are environmental function recovery, waste management improvement, pollution source eradication, compensation for the affected group and attitudinal changes among law breakers.besides, class action as a tool of social engineering, that is, when a gap between law and social change appears, should find its solution whereas class action as a social emancipation means the equal right among various aspects of social life.based on the fact that court decision in class action is binding to all, any interest group using this procedure should help reduce administrative problems. this new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction, public claims using a class action procedure, ls relevant to Frederick Calvert's theory. the people?s interest represented by a class action is in accordance with the theoiy of utilitarianism proposed by Jeremy Bentham. judges, accordingly, should make their decision on the basis of equilibrium principle between individual and collective interests as put forward by John Rawls In his theory of justice. rules are then needed to avoid a conflict of interests, between individual and collective ones. law as an umpire is indispensable."