Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Perkembangan Perbankan Syariah sangat pesat di Indonesia, mengingat Indonesia adalah negara dengan umat muslim terbesar di Dunia. Pertumbuhan perbankan syariah yang sangat tinggi berdampak pada tingginya tingkat sengketa yang terjadi diantara para pelaku perbankan syariah. Tuntutan akan penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah yang baik akhirnya berujung dengan dikeluarkannya Undang-undang No. 3 Tahun 2006 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-undang No.7 tahun 1989 tentang Peradilan agama dimana diserahkannya kewenangan kompetensi absolut penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah kepada Pengadilan Agama. Dilain sisi peraturan tentang perbankan syariah yang masih menyatu dengan peraturan mengenai perbankan pada umumnya akhirnya melatari dikeluarkannya Undang-undang No.21 tahun 2008 tentang Perbankan Syariah, namun dengan dikeluarkannya Undang-undang ini menambah kebingungan penyelesaian karena dalam Pasal 55 Undang-undang 21 tahun 2008 memberikan pilihan hukum dimana para pihak dapat memilih penyelesaian sengketa selain di Pengadilan Agama, tetapi juga dilingkup Pengadilan Umum. Kondisi demikian membawa ketidak pastian hukum yang dimana akhrinya diajukan kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui Putusan No. 93/PUUX/ 2012 akhirnya mengembalikan kembali kewenangan kepada Pengadilan Agama. Pengembalian ini tidak lantas tanpa masalah karena adanya lembaga penyelesaian lain seperti Basyarnas yang melalui Fatwa Dewan Syariah Nasional menyebutkan bahwa penyelesaian sengketa Perbankan Syariah diselaikan melalui Basyarnas. Thesis ini membahas mengenai polemik konsepsi yang terjadi dalam proses penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah yang ada.

---

Islamic Banking grows very fast in Indonesia, because Indonesia has the biggest moeslem population in the world. The developing of Islamic Banking is growing rapidly and it gives highly impacts with disputes between the bankers and the customers. To solve the case of dispute in Islamic Banking, The Government of Indonesia conceals the laws number 3 in 2006 about the changing of the laws number 7 in 1989 about religious court that it gets absolute competence authorities solves dispute on Islamic Banking. Beside of that, the rules of Islamic Banking still fuse with the common banking rules so the government has concealed the laws number 21 in 2008 about Islamic Banking. But the laws are confusing because in the chapter of 55 the laws number 21 in 2008, it says that the parties can choose to solve dispute of Islamic Banking not only in the religious court but also in the general court. This condition makes uncertain laws which is solved finally by constitutional court. The constitutional court has made decision number 93/PUU-X/2012 which finally return back the authorities to the religious court. In returning of the laws make another case because of the existence of another solving institution such as Basyarnas by The National Islamic Council saying that the solving of Islamic Banking dispute can be solved by Basyarnas. This thesis review about The polemic conseption that happens in the process of the solving this dispute Islamic Banking."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah pasca dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 dengan melakukan studi pada perkara antara Bank Syariah X dengan Nasabahnya. Terhadap perkara antara Bank Syariah X dengan nasabahnya ini sendiri telah diputus melalui Putusan Sela Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat Nomor 42/PDT.G 2013/PN.JKT.PST tanggal 28 Agustus 2013 ('Putusan Sela'). Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan tipe penelitian evaluatif untuk melakukan analisis terhadap Putusan Sela, sehingga melalui penelitian ini diharapkan mampu memberikan rekomendasi dan menjadi rujukan bagi hakim yang tengah memeriksa, memutus dan menyelesaikan perkara terkait pnyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah, khususnya hakim di Pengadilan Tinggi Jakarta yang saat ini tengah memeriksa perkara di tingkat banding yang diajukan oleh Nasabah Bank Syariah X.

---

This thesis discusses the Islamic Banking’s dispute resolution after the issuance of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 93/PUU-X/2012 by conducting a case study on the dispute between Islamic Bank 'X' with its Customers. This dispute between the Islamic Bank 'X' with its Customers has already enacted by the Decision of Central Jakarta District Court No. 42/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST dated August 28, 2013. The method used is the method of normative legal research with the type of evaluative research to analyze the Decision, so that through this study is expected to provide recommendations and a reference for the Judge who is examining, decide and resolve the dispute resolution proceedings in respect of Islamic banking, in particular judge who is currently examining the case on appeal filed by the Islamic Bank Customer."

"Penelitian yang dilakukan dalam menyusun tesis ini menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif, yakni mengkaji ketentuan-ketentuan pada peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan masalah penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah ditinjau dari asas kebebasan berkontrak setelah adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah dihubungkan dengan asas kebebasan berkontrak. Dalam penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah, yang pertama kali harus dilakukan adalah melihat pilihan forum dan hukum yang dipilih oleh para pihak yang bersengketa. Meskipun Indonesia menganut asas kebebasan berkontrak, namun dalam penggunaan asas kebebasan berkontrak tersebut banyak dibatasi oleh KUH Perdata itu sendiri diantaranya adalah tidak boleh bertentangan dengan peraturan yang berlaku serta tidak melanggar kepentingan umum. Hal ini dapat dilihat dengan pembatasan dalam penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah, dimana menurut Pasal 55 UU No. 21 tahun 2008 tentang Perbankan Syariah jo Pasal 49 (i) UU No. 3 tahun 2006 tentang Peradilan Agama, kewenangan memeriksa dan memutus sengketa perbankan syariah haruslah sesuai dengan prinsip syariah sehingga kewenangan ada pada Peradilan Agama. Hal tersebut sesuai dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012, yang memutuskan bahwa penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah merupakan yurisdiksi dari Peradilan Agama atau dapat dilaksanakan sesuai dengan isi Akad. Sehingga, pemilihan forum penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah haruslah sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku.

---

Research carried out in preparing this thesis was using normative juridical approach, which examines the provisions of the legislation relating to the issue of Sharia banking dispute settlement in terms of the principle of freedom of contract post the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 made. The purpose of this study was to determine on how dispute settlement in Sharia banking in Indonesia works related to the principle of freedom of contract. In Sharia banking dispute settlement, the first thing to do is to look at the choice of forum and choice of law chosen by the parties to the dispute. Although Indonesia adheres to the principle of freedom of contract, but in the use of this principle is restricted by the Civil Code itself which are should not be contrary with existing regulations and does not violate the public interest.

The restrictions of this principle can be seen in Sharia banking dispute settlement, which according to Article 55 of Law No.21 of 2008 concerning Sharia Banking in conjunction with Article 49 (i) of Law No. 3 2006 concerning Religious Courts, the authority to examine and decide upon is the jurisdiction of the Religious Courts. It is consistent with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012, which decided that the dispute settlement in Sharia banking is a jurisdiction of the Religious Court or can be implemented in accordance with the contents of Akad. To be concluded, the choice of forum in Sharia banking dispute should be in accordance with the applicable regulations."

"Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif yang mengkaji secara mendalam mengenai norma-norma hukum pada penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah, sekaligus menggali akibat hukum dari keluarnya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 terhadap Pasal 55 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Perbankan Syariah. Sebelum adanya putusan tersebut, penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah dapat dilakukan di Pengadilan Agama, musyawarah, mediasi perbankan, arbitrase syariah atau abitrase lainnya, dan bahkan melalui pengadilan dalam lingkungan Peradilan Umum. Hal ini dianggap menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum dan melanggar UUD 1945 karena ada pilihan forum (choice of forum) pada dua lembaga peradilan yang memiliki kewenangan berbeda. Dadang Achmad yang mengalami sengketa dengan Bank Muamalat Cabang Bogor mengajukan uji materil kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait hal ini karena sengketa atas pembiayaan musyarakah di antara mereka dibawa ke Pengadilan Negeri Bogor. Bank Muamalat sendiri menggunakan UU Hak Tanggungan dan akad musyarakah mereka sebagai dasar hukum melakukan eksekusi jaminan tersebut. Dalam hal ini MK membatalkan Penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (2) UU Perbankan Syariah sehingga penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah secara litigasi saat ini dapat dilakukan di Pengadilan Agama, dan secara non-litigasi para pihak dibebaskan untuk memilih lembaga penyelesaian sengketa tetapi harus tetap berdasarkan Prinsip Syariah. Akan tetapi untuk sengketa Dadang Achmad dan Bank Muamalat sendiri putusan MK tersebut tidak mempunyai implikasi karena eksekusi jaminan yang dilakukan oleh bank adalah berdasarkan UU Hak Tanggungan yang masih memberikan kewenangan eksekusi jaminan hanya kepada Peradilan Umum.

---

This research is juridical normative research that looked deeply about legal normson dispute settlement of the Islamic Banking, and due to law from promulgation of the the Constitutional Court Decision Number 93/PUU-X/2012 on article 55 paragraph (2) of syariah banking law. Before the presence of the Decision, dispute settlement of the Islamic Banking was conducted in Religion Court, by deliberation, banking mediation, Basyarnas or the other, and even through the civil court. It was considered to incur the legal uncertainty and violations of the Constitution because there is a choice of forum for two courts that have different authority. Dadang Achmad, who was involved in dispute with Muamalat Bank’s Bogor office branch, proposed judicial review to The Constitutional Court regarding this case because the dispute over musharaka financing among them were brought into a Civil Court of Bogor. Bank Muamalat was guided by the Indonesian Law of Hak Tanggungan and musharaka accad as legal basis for executing the guarantee.

In this case, The Constitutional Court annulled the Explanation of article 55 paragraph (2) of the Islamic Banking Law so that the Islamic Banking dispute resolution by litigation at this time could be done at the Religion Court, and in a non-litigation condition, the parties were free to choose the dispute settlement resolutions but still have to be based on Shariah Principles. But for Achmad Dadang and Bank Muamalat dispute, this Constitutional Court Decision has no implications because the execution of the guarantee conducted by the bank was based on the Indonesian Law of Hak Tanggungan which the rights of the execution are still authorized by Civil Court."

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 yang isinya mengenai pembatalan penjelasan Pasal 55 Ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah serta menjelaskan akibat hukum yang timbul dari keluarnya putusan tersebut. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan penulis dalam karya ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan sifat penelitian evaluatif, sedangkan berdasarkan tujuannya, tipe penelitian ini termasuk penelitian deskriptif analitis. Berdasarkan analisis yang telah dilakukan penulis, dapat diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 selama belum ditentukan pilihan forum hukum dalam akad, maka menjadi kewenangan absolut Peradilan Agama. Jika para pihak bersepakat untuk menyelesaikan sengketa melalui alternatif penyelesaian sengketa lain, maka pilihan forum hukum untuk menyelesaikan sengketa tersebut harus secara jelas tercantum di dalam akad (perjanjian) dan tidak bertentangan dengan prinsip syariah. Akibat hukum yang utama dari terbitnya putusan tersebut adalah tidak adanya lagi dualisme penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah. Secara umum Peradilan Agama kembali memiliki kewenangan absolut di bidang ekonomi syariah.

---

This study discusses the post Islamic Law Banking Dispute Resolution Constitutional Court Decision Number 93/PUU-X/2012 which is about the cancellation of the explanation of Article 55 Paragraph ( 2 ) of Law Number 21 Year 2008 on Islamic Banking and explain the legal consequences arising from the decision of the. This type of research is used by the author in this work is the normative juridical nature of an evaluative study, while based on the goal, this type of research include deescriptive analysis research.

Based on the analysis that had been conducted by the author, it can be concluded that Islamic banking dispute resolution after the Constitutional Court for an undetermined Number 93/PUU-X/2012 forum choice of law in the contract, then it becomes the absolute authority of the Religious Courts.

If the parties agree to resolve the dispute through alternative dispute resolution other, then the choice of legal forum to resolve the dispute shall be clearly stated in the contract (agreement) and does not conflict with Islamic principles. The main legal consequences of the publication of the decision is no longer dualism Islamic banking disputes. In general, the Religious Court again have the absolute authority in the field of Islamic economics."

"ABSTRAKSeiring dengan pesatnya pertumbuhan bank syariah di Indonesia, potensi yang munculuntuk terjadinya sengketa dalam perbankan syariah juga semakin tinggi, sehinggamenjadi penting bagi perbankan syariah maupun masyarakat pengguna jasa perbankansyariah untuk memahami secara benar bagaimana pengaturan kewenangan lembagapenyelesaian sengketa pada perbankan syariah. Berdasarkan Undang-Undang (UU)Nomor 3 Tahun 2006 tentang perubahan Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 7 Tahun 1989,Pengadilan Agama sebagai lembaga peradilan mempunyai kewenangan absolut sebagailembaga penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah. Namun 2 (dua) tahun setelahdiundangkannya UU Peradilan Agama tersebut, muncullah Undang-Undang (UU)Perbankan Syariah Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 memberikan choice of law, bahwapenyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah dapat juga dilakukan melalui PeradilanUmum, apabila para pihak menghendaki dalam akad. Dengan adanya ketidakpastianhukum tersebut, keluarlah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) No. 93/PUU-X/2012yang menghapus Penjelasan pasal 55 ayat (2) UU Perbankan Syariah No. 21 Tahun2008 tersebut. Berdasarkan hal tersebut terdapat beberapa permasalahan hukum yaitubagaimana pengaturan kewenangan lembaga penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariahdi Indonesia diatur dan bagaimanakah implementasi dari putusan MK No. 93/PUUX/2012 serta tantangan dan potensinya. Permasalahan-permasalahan tersebut ditelitidengan menggunakan metode penelitian sosio legal, yang merupakan penelitian hukumyang menggunakan pendekatan metodologi ilmu sosial dalam arti yang luas. Daripenelitian tersebut dapat disimpulkan bahwa pertama, putusan MK No. 93/PUU-X/2012telah mengembalikan Kompetensi Absolut sebagai lembaga penyelesaian sengketaPerbankan syariah beserta derivasinya. Kedua, implementasi putusan MK No. 93/PUUX/2012 belum sempurna, terlihat dari masih adanya perkara eksekusi jaminan Haktanggungan dan hipotek yang diselesaikan di Pengadilan Negeri. Ketiga, masih adanyatantangan dalam penerapan putusan MK No. 93/PUU-X/2012 tersebut, yang terlihatdari masih adanya ketidakpahaman masyarakat akan kompetensi absolut peradilanagama sebagai lembaga penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah di Indonesia.

---

ABSTRACTAlong with the rapid growth of Islamic banks in Indonesia, the potential that arises fordisputes in Islamic banks are also getting higher, so that it becomes important forIslamic banking and the community users of Islamic banking services to understandcorrectly how the rules of the institution competence for dispute settlement in Islamicbanking. Based on Law No. 3 of 2006 on amendments to Law No 7 of 1989, ReligiousCourts as judicial institutions have absolute competence as a dispute settlementinstitution on Islamic banks. However, 2 (two) years after the promulgation of the Lawon Religious Court, legalized of Law on Sharia Banking No. 21 of 2008, for giving thechoice of law, that Islamic banking dispute resolution can be solved through the GeneralCourts if the parties want in the contract. With the legal uncertainty, the ConstitutionalCourt Decree issued No. 93/PUU-X/2012 which removes the explanation of article 55paragraph (2) Sharia Banking Law No. 21 of 2008. Based on these, there are legalissues, that are how the regulation of authority for sharia banking dispute settlementinstitutions in Indonesia and how the implementation of the Constitutional Court decreeNo. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 and its challenges and potential. These problems are examinedusing the socio-legal research method, which is legal research that uses a methodologyapproach of social science in a broad sense. From the research, it can be concluded thatfirst, the Constitutional Court decree No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 has returned AbsoluteCompetence as an Islamic Banking dispute settlement institution and its derivatives.Second, the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decree No. 93/PUU-X/2012has not been perfect, it can be seen from the cases of execution of guarantees Mortgageand mortgage rights that are settled in the District Court. Third, there are still challengesin the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decree No. 93/PUU-X/2012, whichcan be seen from the incomprehension of the community about the absolutecompetence of the religious court as an institution for dispute settlement on Islamicbanking in Indonesia.

---

"

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas kehadiran peradilan agama sebagai lembaga penyelesaiansengketa perbankan syariah yang efektifitas keberadaannya belum dirasakanmaksimal sampai dengan diterbitkannya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi di tahun2013. Tesis ini memberikan gambaran serta mengungkap sejauh mana peradilanagama mampu mengakomodir kebutuhan dan kepentingan industri perbankan syariahsebagai satu kesatuan sistem hukum ekonomi Islam. Penelitian dilakukan secaranormatif, yaitu dengan menganalisa pelaksanaan atau implementasi ketentuan hukumsecara faktual. Adanya fakta bahwa selama kurun waktu keberadaan industriperbankan syariah, para pelaku di dalamnya justru cenderung untuk memilih lembagaperadilan umum apabila terjadi sengketa menunjukkan realitas keraguan ataskompetensi pengetahuan para hakim peradilan agama, kekhawatiran kepentinganperbankan yang tidak terakomodir secara baik, dan juga faktor sosial dimanaperadilan umum lebih familiar untuk dipilih daripada peradilan agama. Olehkarenanya agar cita-cita akan sebuah sistem hukum perbankan syariah yang utuh diIndonesia terwujud, diperlukan sinergi yang lebih baik antar lembaga dan jugasinkronisasi ketentuan di dalamnya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the presence of religious courls as a dispute resolutioninstitution of sharia banking that the effectiveness of its existence has not been feltmaximized until the publication of the Constitutional Court decision in 2013. Thisthesis provides an overview as well as reveal the extent to which the religious courtswere able to accommodate the needs and interests of the sharia banking industry as awhole legal system of Islamic economics. Research conducted normative, byanalyzing the execution or implementation of the provisions of the law. The fact thatduring the period of existence of the sharia banking industry, in which actors tend tochoose a general court in the event of a dispute showed the reality of doubt on thecompetence of knowledge of the judges of religious courts, which do not concern theinterests of banks are well accommodated, and also social factors which morefamiliar to the general court chosen rather than religious courts. Therefore, in orderthat the ideals of the legal system will be a complete sharia banking in Indonesiarealized, needed a better synergy between institutions and also synchronize theregulation in it."

"Praktek dual banking system di Indonesia semakin menjamur sejak Indonesia mengalami krisis ekonomi di akhir tahun 1990-an. Perkembangan ini diikuti dengan tumbuhnya layanan perbankan dengan sistem konvensional dan syariah, antara lain dalam bentuk layanan pembiayaan konsumtif dan produktif dengan sistem murabahah (jual beli dengan margin yang disepakati). Hal yang menjadi pokok permasalahan penelitian ini adalah praktek pembiayaan murabahah terkait pengelolaan risiko dan prudential banking pada Bank Syariah X yang diterapkan pada PT. Z, selain itu peneliti juga mengangkat masalah mengenai komparasi kesesuaian putusan Pengadilan Agama Nomor 729/Pdt.G/2009/PA.JP dengan peraturan terkait Perbankan Syariah dan hukum Islam. Penelitian dilakukan secara deskriptif dengan menggunakan teknik analisis data melalui pendekatan kualitatif. Dalam penelitian ini penulis menganalisa praktek pembiayaan murabahah antara Bank Syariah X dan PT. Z, serta membandingkan penyelesaian sengketa pada Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional dan Pengadilan Agama dengan. Penulis menyimpulkan bahwa terdapat penyimpangan atas hukum Islam serta prinsip prudential banking yang dilakukan oleh Bank Syariah X. Di samping itu, terdapat pula penyimpangan atas hukum Islam dan asas keadilan dalam putusan Pengadilan Agama Nomor 729/Pdt.G/2009/PA.JP.

---

Since economic crisis in the last 1990, dual banking system practice has grown bigger in Indonesia. This growth is shown by the amount existence of banks that provide service using both conventional system and Islamic system, like consumptive and productive funding services using murabahah system (a trading system using the negotiated margin).

As the subject matter in this study are the implementation of murabahah funding related to risk management and prudential Banking of Bank Syariah X which is applied to PT Z, besides that the writer also examine the suitability of Pengadilan Agama Verdict No.729/Pdt.G/2009/PA.JP to the Law related in shariah Banking and Islamic Law. The study is done descriptively by using data analysis in qualitative approach.

In this study, the writer analyzes the implementation of murabahah funding between Bank Syarih X and PT Z, the writer also compare the dispute settlement in National Department of Islamic Arbitration (Basyarnas) and Religious Court to positive and Islamic Law. The writer finally concludes that there are some misappropriations of the Islamic shariah and prudential banking principal done by Bank Syariah X. In addition, it is also found that there is inconsistency on Verdict of Pengadilan Agama Number 729/Pdt.G/2009/PA.JP with Islamic shariah and principle of justice."

"Islamic Banking as one of the systems favored by Muslim countries, especially Indonesia and Malaysia. Through time, there are still a number of problems regarding the resolution of Islamic Banking disputes. In this study, the two countries will have to deal with issues concerning the dispute resolution of Islamic Banking disputes and also the extent of the authority of the Religious Courts in each country to handle the settlement of Islamic Banking disputes. This research was conducted based on the normative juridical method through the analysis of relevant regulations from each country, also referring to some literature. The results of this study will be explained in the form of recommendations that will be addressed to certain parties in Indonesia and Malaysia including the Government to improve the implementation of Sharia Banking Dispute Resolution.

---

Perbankan Syariah sebagai salah satu sistem yang disukai oleh negara-negara yang beragama Islam, terutama Indonesia dan Malaysia. Melalui waktu, masih ada beberapa masalah tentang penyelesaian sengketa Perbankan Syariah. Dalam penelitian ini, akan dibahas masalah-masalah yang harus diatasi oleh kedua negara mengenai resolusi perselisihan Perbankan Syariah dan juga sejauh mana kewenangan Pengadilan Agama di masing-masing negara untuk menangani penyelesaian perselisihan Perbankan Syariah. Penelitian ini dilakukan berdasarkan metode yuridis normatif melalui analisis peraturan yang relevan dari masing-masing negara, juga mengacu pada beberapa literatur. Hasil penelitian ini akan dijelaskan dalam bentuk rekomendasi yang akan ditujukan pada pihak-pihak tertentu di Indonesia dan Malaysia termasuk Pemerintah untuk meningkatkan implementasi Resolusi Perselisihan Perbankan Syariah."

"[Tesis ini membahas Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU X/2012 Terhadap Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbankan Syariah Pada PT Bank X dan Y. Putusan MK Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 membatalkan penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (2) UU Nomor 21 Tahun2008 tentang Perbankan Syariah yang mengatur tentang Pilihan sengketa antara nasabah dan pihak bank. Pengujian Pasal 55 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) UU Perbankan Syariah ini diajukan oleh seorang nasabah Bank Muamalat bernama Dudun Achmad. Pemohon sendiri mengalamikredit macet di Bank Muamalat Cabang Bogor melalui akad pembiayaan sebagaimana tertuang dalam Akta Notaris No. 34 tertanggal 9 Juli 2009. Tesis ini membahas mengenai pilihan forum (choice of forum) dalam hal terjadi sengketa dibidang perbankan syariah sebelum adannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 serta implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 terhadap penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah pada PT Bank X dan Y. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dan data yang digunakan adalah data primer, sekunder dan tersier. Putusan MKNomor 93/PUU-X/2012 yang menghapus penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (2). Adapun pilihan forum dalam hal terjadi sengketa dibidang perbankan syariah sebelum adannya Putusan Mahmakah Konstitusi dilakukan melalui arbitrase oleh BAMUI yang kemudian berganti nama menjadibasyarnas dan pada tahun 2006 ada dispute settlement option (pilihan penyelesaian sengketa yang baru (Pasal 49 huruf (i) UU Peradilan Agama hingga lahir Lahir UU Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 tentang Perbankan Syariah. Implikasi Putusan MK Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 yang menghapus penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat 2 UU Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 mendorong para pihak untuk menyelesaikan sengketa pada Pengadilan Agama. Berdasarkan hasil wawancara yang dilakukan pada Bank X dapat diketahui bahwasanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 tidak berpengaruh pada Bank tersebut yang sejak awal memilih Pengadilan Agama. Sedangkan untuk PT. Bank Y sendiri, dikarenakan putusan MK Nomor 93/PUUX/ 2012 tidak menghapus isi pasal 55 ayat 2 Undang-undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2008, maka Bank Y mempunyai hak untuk menggunakan choice of law dalam hal penyelesaian sengketa. Dalam hal ini Bank Y memilih penyelesaian sengketa melalui Pengadilan Negeri. Biasanya bank mempunyai formulir standar dalam hal terjadi penyelesaian sengketa kecuali para pihak menentukan sebaliknya. Namun dalam pelaksanaanya biasanya para pihak mengikuti ketentuan yang telah diatur dalam formulir standar tersebut;This thesis discusses the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU X / 2012 Settlement Against Islamic Banking at PT Bank X and Y. Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 canceled the elucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law Number 21 Year 2008 on Islamic Banking governing the choice of dispute between the customer and the bank. Testing of Article 55 paragraph (2) and (3)Islamic Banking Act was filed by a customer of Bank Muamalat named Dudun Achmad. Applicant's own experience of bad loans in Bank Muamalat branch Bogor through financing agreement as stated in Deed No. 34 dated 9 July 2009. This thesis discusses the choice of forum (choice of forum) in the event of a dispute in the field of Islamic banking before adannya Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 as well as the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 against Islamic banking dispute resolution in PT Bank X and Y. The method used is normative juridical and data used are primary data, secondary and tertiary. Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 which remove the elucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2). As for the choice of forum in the event of a dispute in the field of Islamic banking before adannya Decision of the Constitutional Mahmakah made through arbitration by BAMUI which later renamed Basyarnas and in 2006 there was a dispute settlement option (a new option for dispute resolution (Article 49 letter (i) of the Religious Judicature born Born to Act No. 21 of 2008 concerning Islamic Banking. Implications of Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X /2012 which remove the elucidation of Article 55 paragraph 2 of Law No. 21 of 2008 to encourage the parties to resolve the dispute at the Religious Court. Based on the results of interviews conducted Bank X can be seen that the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 has no effect on the Bank since the beginning choose the Religious Courts. As for PT. Bank Y itself, due to the decision of theConstitutional Court Number 93 / PUU-X / 2012 does not remove the content of Article 55 paragraph 2 of Law No. 21 of 2008, the Bank Y has the right to use the choice of law in terms of dispute resolution. In this case the Bank Y selecting dispute resolution through the District Court. Usually banks have a standard form in the event of a dispute unless the parties specify otherwise. But the parties in the implementation usually follow the provisions set out in the standard form., This thesis discusses the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 /PUU X / 2012 Settlement Against Islamic Banking at PT Bank X and Y. CourtDecision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 canceled the elucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2)of Law Number 21 Year 2008 on Islamic Banking governing the choice of disputebetween the customer and the bank. Testing of Article 55 paragraph (2) and (3)Islamic Banking Act was filed by a customer of Bank Muamalat named DudunAchmad. Applicant's own experience of bad loans in Bank Muamalat branch Bogorthrough financing agreement as stated in Deed No. 34 dated 9 July 2009. This thesisdiscusses the choice of forum (choice of forum) in the event of a dispute in the fieldof Islamic banking before adannya Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X /2012 as well as the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X/ 2012 against Islamic banking dispute resolution in PT Bank X and Y. The methodused is normative juridical and data used are primary data, secondary and tertiary.Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 which remove the elucidationof Article 55 paragraph (2). As for the choice of forum in the event of a dispute in thefield of Islamic banking before adannya Decision of the Constitutional Mahmakahmade through arbitration by BAMUI which later renamed Basyarnas and in 2006there was a dispute settlement option (a new option for dispute resolution (Article 49letter (i) of the Religious Judicature born Born to Act No. 21 of 2008 concerningIslamic Banking. Implications of Constitutional Court Decision No. 93 / PUU-X /2012 which remove the elucidation of Article 55 paragraph 2 of Law No. 21 of 2008to encourage the parties to resolve the dispute at the Religious Court. Based on theresults of interviews conducted Bank X can be seen that the Constitutional CourtDecision No. 93 / PUU-X / 2012 has no effect on the Bank since the beginningchoose the Religious Courts. As for PT. Bank Y itself, due to the decision of theConstitutional Court Number 93 / PUU-X / 2012 does not remove the content ofArticle 55 paragraph 2 of Law No. 21 of 2008, the Bank Y has the right to use thechoice of law in terms of dispute resolution. In this case the Bank Y selecting disputeresolution through the District Court. Usually banks have a standard form in the eventof a dispute unless the parties specify otherwise. But the parties in the implementationusually follow the provisions set out in the standard form]"