Analisis Yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbankan Syariah

Juridical Analysis of Constitutional Court Decision No. 93/PUU-X/2012 in the Islamic Banking Dispute ResolutionElucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law No. 21 of 2008 concerning Islamic Banking which has long been highlighted by academics, practitioners and citizens of the Islamic banking because the resulting legal uncertainty. This article then filed a judicial review by the Applicant Ir. Dada H. Achmad to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court through decision No. 93/PUU-X/2012 states that the whole explanation of Article 55 paragraph (2) declared unconstitutional and does not have binding legal force. Based on the authors are interested in researching the reasons and considerations regarding judges in the Constitutional Court decision No. 93/PUU-X/2012, as well as how the legal consequences of the decision. This research included in the library research and using normative juridical approach. Materials used in this study is data Primary and Secondary. Primary data in this study is from the Constitutional Court Decision No.93/PUU-X/2012 related to the settlement of disputes Authority of Islamic banking. Secondary data sources of this research is the data obtained from literature sources, either from books, the internet, or scientific work relating to the cases studied. Based on the results of research are: 1) the reasons in the judgment of the Constitutional Court is the choice of forum in the choice of dispute resolution may cause legal uncertainty, 2) Court Decision No. 93/PUU-X/2012 including the grant to the nature of negative Legislature that emphasizes the importance of the principle of certainty law in the event of litigation, but in the case of non-litigation it causes legal uncertainty, 3) After the decision of the Court solidify absolute authority (absolute) religious courts in resolving disputes Islamic banking, and 4) are still justified dispute resolution Islamic banking through non-litigation , because the decision was still satisfy the principle of freedom of contract to restore the rule of Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, namely in the form of mediation, negotiation, consultation, arbitration, conciliation and expert opinion