Kewenangan Pelaksanaan Putusan Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/puu-x/2012

This research was discussing the overlapped authorities encountered by judicial agencies in relative with the implementation of Basyarnas Decision. It was evident because Law No.30/1999 on Arbitrage and Alternative Problem Solving and Law No.48/2009 on Judicial Power had given authority to State Court to solve the disputes of Syariah Banking, meaning that State Court was given authority to implement Basyarnas Decision. However, Constitutional Court Decree No.93/PUU-X/2012 had given authority of the resolution of Syariah Banking disputes to the hand of Religion Court, and this position was supported by Article 49 of Religion Justice Law. Research type was juridical normative with several approaches such as statute, history and case approaches. Law materials were also included such as primary, secondary and tertiary materials. The collected law materials were processed using grammatical interpretation method. Result of research indicated that Article 59 Verse (3) of Law No.48/2009 on Judicial Power had assigned State Court as the authoritative entity to implement the decision of National Syariah Arbitrage Agency (Basyarnas) but the Law only regulated general conditions about Arbitrage. In other legal standing, the authoritative entity to implement Basyarnas Decision was Religion Court. Legal implication caused by authority overlapping in the implementation of Basyarnas Decision could be described as following: (a) It would be considered misappropriate if submitting any claims with the unauthorized justice environment or the improper court; (b) The implementation of Religious Court's tasks concerning with syariah economic disputes were often constrained; and (c) Absolute authority of Religious Court in resolving syariah economic disputes was highly reduced, thus producing legal confusion