Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Presiden pada sistem negara Presidensial memiliki kedudukan yang kuat karena tidak mudah untuk diberhentikan. Namun, mekanisme pemberhentian Presiden tetap diperlukan demi terciptanya checks and balances antar kekuasaan, untuk itu dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia memberikan ruang bagi cabang kekuasaan lain, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR), untuk memberhentikan Presiden, dengan alasan-alasan yang tercantum dalam Pasal 7A Undang-Undang Negara Republik Indonesia 1945 (UUD NRI 1945), yaitu: pengkhianatan terhadap negara, korupsi, penyuapan, tindak pidana berat lainnya, atau perbuatan tercela maupun apabila terbukti sudah tidak lagi memenuhi syarat sebagai Presiden. Perumus amendemen UUD NRI 1945 menghendaki proses pemberhentian Presiden jauh dari alasan politis, dan harus berlandaskan alasan hukum, maka dari seluruh alasan pemberhentian Presiden merupakan perbuatan hukum yang diatur dan dijelaskan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 24 tahun 2004 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Akan tetapi pada frasa 'perbuatan tercela' batasannya hanyalah 'merendahkan martabat Presiden,' sehingga sangat berpotensi membuka alasan politis untuk memberhentikan Presiden. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, frasa 'perbuatan tercela' diambil dari frasa misdemeanor, frasa ini awalnya digagas di Inggris sebagai salah satu alasan impeachment, kemudian diadopsi oleh Amerika Serikat dan diadopsi di Indonesia. Walaupun di kalangan ahli hukum masih terjadi perdebatan mengenai batasan perbuatan tercela, perumus amendemen menganggap penting frasa 'perbuatan tercela' sebagai penjaga moral Presiden, karena Presiden adalah panutan rakyatnya. Dari hasil penelitian, diajukan saran untuk frasa 'perbuatan tercela' diperjelas dengan ditambah maknanya yang terdiri dari: penyalahgunaan kekuasaan, mengabaikan tugas, mengganggu hak prerogatif parlemen, pengkhianatan terhadap kepercayaan, dan melanggar moral. Atau apabila proses pembentukan UU tidak berhasil memberikan batasan yang jelas terhadap makna perbuatan tercela, maka demi terwujudnya tujuan proses pemberhentian Presiden yang beralasan hukum dan bukan beralasan politik, untuk itu frasa perbuatan tercela dihapus dari rumusan Pasal 7A UUD NRI 1945 apabila terjadi proses amendemen kelima.

---

The president in the presidential state system has a strong position because President is not easy to impeach. However, the mechanism of impeachment of the President is still needed for the sake of checks and balances between powers, for this reason the Indonesian constitutional system provides chance for other branches of power, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), to impeach the President with reasons stated in Article 7A State Law of the Republic of Indonesia 1945 (UUD NRI 1945): betrayal of the state, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes, or misdemeanors or if it is proven that it no longer fulfills the requirements as President. The formulator of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution amendment requires the process of dismissing the President away from political reasons, and must be based on legal reasons, so that all reasons for dismissal of the President are legal actions based on regulation and explanation in Law Number 24 of 2004 concerning the Constitutional Court. However, in the phrase 'misdemeanor' the limits are only 'degrading the President', so it has the potential to open up political reasons for dismissing the President. Based on the results of the study, the phrase 'misdemeanor' was taken from the phrase misdemeanor, this phrase was originally conceived in England as one of the reasons for impeachment, later adopted by the United States and adopted in Indonesia. Although there are still debates among legal experts regarding the limits of despicable acts, the amendment formulator consider it important that the phrase 'misdemeanor' be the guardian of the President's morality, because the President is a role model for his people. From the results of the study, researcher suggest for the phrase 'misdemeanor' must be clarified by adding their meaning consisting of: abuse of power, neglecting duties, disrupting parliamentary prerogatives, betrayal of trust, and violating morals. Or if the process of forming a law does not succeed in giving a clear boundary to the meaning of a misdemeanor act, then for the purpose of the termination of the President's legal grounds and not political reasons, for this reason the phrase misdemeanor is removed from the formulation of Article 7A 1945 Constitution in the event of the fifth amendment process."

"Kemajuan teknologi telah memberikan dampak pada banyak sektor, salah satunya pada industri keuangan, instrumen pendanaan yang berbasis teknologi menjadi alternatif penyaluran dana dan akses kepada pembiayaan selain melalui perbankan. Peer to Peer Lending (P2PL) merupakan salah satu platform industri keuangan berbasis Financial Technology (fintech) yang memberikan kemudahan bagi masyarakat untuk mengakses pendanaan. Dari sudut pandang Syariah, melalui Fatwa DSN-MUI No. 117/DSN-MUI/II/2018 tentang Layanan Pembiayaan Berbasis Teknologi Informasi Berdasarkan Prinsip Syariah menjadi dasar diperbolehkannya secara Syariah praktik P2PL, sehingga industri P2PL yang berlandaskan prinsip Syariah atau P2PL Syariah tumbuh dan berkembang di Indonesia. Kemudahan akses pendanaan di sisi lain berimplikasi pada meningkatnya risiko pembiayaan macet, sehingga diperlukan suatu sistem yang baik dalam menyelesaikan pembiayaan macet apabila terjadi. Fatwa DSN-MUI sejatinya telah menjelaskan bahwa jika diantara para pihak terjadi perselisihan, maka musyawarah mufakat dilaksanakan sebagai upaya penyelesaian perselisihan, jika mufakat tidak dicapai, maka diselesaikan sengketa tersebut melalui jalan lembaga penyelesaian sengketa berdasarkan syariah sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Pada tulisan ini akan mengulas lebih lanjut mengenai mekanisme penyelesaian pembiayaan macet khususnya pada PT Alami Sharia, dimana berdasarkan hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwa secara umum terdapat dua jenis metode penyelesaian, yakni litigasi dan non-litigasi. Penggunaan metode non-litigasi diutamakan dan dilakukan sebelum metode litigasi, beberapa metode non-litigasi yang dapat dilakukan antara lain adalah musyawarah berupa mediasi, negosiasi, arbitrase serta melalui Lembaga Perlindungan Konsumen, apabila metode non-litigasi sudah ditempuh dan tidak berhasil, maka metode litigasi melalui pengadilan dapat dilakukan. Pada kasus Alami, mekanisme yang dapat ditempuh diatur dalam perjanjian pemberian kuasa antara Alami sebagai penyelenggara P2PL Syariah dengan pemberi pembiayaan sebagai pengguna adalah sejalan dengan ketentuan Fatwa DSN-MUI No. 117/DSN-MUI/II/2018 yakni melalui musyawarah dan apabila tidak berhasil maka diselesaikan melalui pengadilan agama. Namun karena Tingkat Keberhasilan pembiayaan Alami masih 100% maka belum pernah ada kasus penyelesaian perselisihan atau sengketa di Alami.

---

Technological advances have had an impact on many sectors, one of which is the financial industry, technology-based funding instruments have become an alternative for channeling funds and access to financing other than through banking. Peer to Peer Lending (P2PL) is a Financial Technology (fintech) based financial industry platform that makes it easy for the public to access funding. From a Sharia point of view, through the DSN-MUI Fatwa No. 117/DSN-MUI/II/2018 concerning Information Technology-Based Financing Services Based on Sharia Principles is the basis for the regulation of P2PL practices in Sharia, so that the P2PL industry based on Sharia principles or Sharia P2PL grows and develops in Indonesia. Ease of access to funding, on the other hand, has implications for increasing the risk of bad financing, so that a good system is needed to resolve bad financing when it occurs. The DSN-MUI fatwa has actually explained that if there is a dispute between the parties, consensus deliberation (musyawarah mufakat) is carried out as an effort to resolve the dispute, if consensus is not reached, then the dispute is resolved through a sharia-based dispute resolution institution in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This paper will further review the mechanism of settlement of bad financing, especially at PT Alami Sharia, based on the results of the research it was found that in general there are two types of settlement methods, namely litigation and non-litigation. The use of non-litigation methods is prioritized and carried out before litigation methods, several non-litigation methods that can be carried out include deliberations in the form of mediation, negotiation, arbitration and through consumer protection agencies, if non-litigation methods have been tried and are not successful, then the litigation method through the courts can be done. In the Alami case, the mechanism that can be followed is regulated in the power of attorney agreement between Alami as the organizer of the Sharia P2PL and the financier as the user is in line with the provisions of the DSN-MUI Fatwa No. 117/DSN-MUI/II/2018 namely through deliberation and if it is not successful then it is resolved through a religious court. However, because the Success Rate of Alami's financing is still 100%, there has never been a case of dispute resolution or dispute at Alami."