article | Opini | 2025-08-16 14:00:43

The performance of judicial institutions in general scope encompasses civil disputes and crimes, not limited to its distinctive nature of case. The enforcement of law has now attached to daily basis as the necessity of property rights protection demands in wide range. Considering that Indonesia is currently experiencing a breakdown in trust on law enforcement agency especially the judiciary, appropriate measures shall be taken into account. The demand of immense quality of law enforcement generically procured by the increasing volume of business transaction and the needs of protecting property rights follows aforementioned. As property rights protection is fundamental for the stability of economic ecosystem, the commitment in business transaction thereby embodied in contracts shall be secured in order to enable advance commerce aiming nation’s economic growth. Such remarks present the relevance of judiciary to economy particularly the role of judicial institution to maintain regular and firm administration of justice. A report made by International Institute of Management Development under the Global Competitiveness Report 2024 indicates the mighty influence of quality of institutions on economic growth. Despite the ranks of Indonesia which performs significant increment on rank 27 previously on 33, it denotes the significant economic competitiveness of Indonesia regardless of how such number might signify judicial performance demands. Speaking of which, these ranks whose made by business actors generate scores determined by economic indicators and henceforth invoking the quality of judiciary on the scope of dispute resolution. Business transactions may lead to gain and loss perceived by business actors thereafter require legal protection in time breach of contract takes place. In addition, the enforcement of resolutions after the disputes settled in some way may only be executed under the judgement of the court and thereby the effectiveness and efficiency of judiciary are highly demanded. According to a study conducted by Matthieu Chaemin in 2012, in time an obligation is infringed due to certain factors and transaction cost to compose new partners are upscaling, the position of suppliers and customers is imbalance and leads to disputes hereby litigated. Within this setting, the judiciaries are expected to provide resolution which cover all parties interest thus a mediation will then be held and if mediation fails, proceeding will be continued. The judiciary performance on cases regarding disputes involving business actors delineate how legal protection and certainty provide assurance to preserve the business continuity plan of economic agents. Notwithstanding, the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as arbitration has been popular amongst business actors, however ADR does not grant the authority of eviction hereafter persists court judgement. For illustration, the case regarding breach of contract whose parties are varies including nationals or foreign experience obstacles to obtain the condemnatory rules of court judgement even if it has been determined inkracht van gewijsde, particular factors such as timeliness and court delay of the eviction process further influence the upcoming business plan envisaged by the time cost, notwithstanding the process also relies on the good faith of all parties. In 2024, the Supreme Court of Indonesia pertains specific attention to the performance of judiciary as indicator to the initiative instrument of competitiveness by published a book compilation of scientific studies regarding business competitiveness and convenience, particularly examined the consistency of court judgement on commercial cases. This measure is a responsive action of the government priority programs concerning the convenience of business aiming to improve the market environment. The presented cases of this book are mainly addressing how the consistency of court judgment on commercial cases such as intellectual property rights, bankruptcy and insolvency and thus competitive law provoking reactions to the market environment. In respect of economic activities where there will always be consumer and producer, equitable protection is compulsory to be accomplished. Pursuant to the fundamental human rights, it shall be proclaimed that in the economic activities, consumers and producer are in inequal position considering that the information and resources of the purchased goods are provided by the producer hence the power prevails to the producer. This imbalance power shall disclose the need to protect consumers to ensure the legal certainty as stipulated in Article 2 of the Indonesian Consumer Protection Law which prescribes principles of consumer protection.However, the impact of performance of judiciary to economy shall not only measured by consistency of commercial case judgement. Alain Marciano et al in 2018 proposed two notions which influence the performance of judiciary, specifically efficiency and effectiveness. However, such notions confront a predicament. The demand on quality of judiciary performance in fact requires public expenditures. Taking into account the current trend of arising number of disputes submitted to the court is plausible due to the principle of simple, speedy and low-cost principles. In this regard, the demand to acquire quality of judiciary is inevitable from the mighty need of human resources and public infrastructure. High number of cases require quite number of judges. Whereas in several courts, the distribution of judges is less precise. The government believes that the administration of institution shall remark the efficiency of public funds. Such policy to provide more resources is hardly possible but conceivable.On the other hand, the business actors demand effectiveness including the timeliness and less court delay considering the cost it takes. Business plan thus enumerates the requisite of potential dispute which shall be included to the financial plan. In this understanding, we disclose that the need of business actors and the measures which shall be taken are not equivalent. The subsequent relevant question arises whether efficient and effective judiciary entail better justice. Preceding studies conducted to find the answer to this question faces backlash due to the factors trailing such indicators. Efficient judiciary refers to quantitate aspect while effective judiciary performs qualitative aspect. Speedy trial may satisfy the business actors but the quality of the judgement can be deteriorated. The aforementioned discussion shows that the perspective of economy and law apparently cannot meet. Thereafter, the performance of the judiciary will never satisfy economic perspective if seen as a whole, it shall be examined scope by scope basis.  Referensi [1] Rita Komalasari dkk. 2024. Konsistensi Putusan Perkara Komersial sebagai lnstrumen Pendorong Daya Saing Nasional dan Kemudahan Berusaha. Jakarta: Lembaga Kajian Dialektika.[2] Alain Marciano, Alessandro Melcarne and Giovanni B. Ramello, “The economic importance of judicial institutions, their performance and the proper way to measure them,” Journal of Institutional Economics, vol 1, no. 12, August 2018. doi:10.1017/S1744137418000292[3] Frans van Dijk and Horatius Dumbrava, “Judiciary In Times Of Scarcity: Retrenchment And Reform”, International Journal for Court Administration, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2013, doi: 10.18352/ijca.4[4] Global Competitiveness Report 2024, International Institute of Management Development 

article | Berita | 2025-02-17 13:30:07

Larantuka -  17 Februari 2025 telah dibacakan putusan terhadap perkara Praperadilan Nomor 1/Pid.Prap/2025/PN Lrt atas nama Pemohon Daniel Geofandi Fernandez oleh hakim tunggal Bagus Sujatmiko, S.H., M.H. Kasus ini bermula pada tanggal 5 Januari 2025 ketika Pemohon Praperadilan terlibat cekcok dan memukul korban atas nama Mikhael Kanisius. Atas kejadian ini korban langsung melaporkan Pemohon ke Sentra Pelayanan Kepolisian Terpadu (SPKT) Polres Flores Timur. Pihak Polres yang bertindak cepat kemudian langsung memproses laporan dengan melakukan wawancara saksi-saksi hingga meminta bukti visum. Setelah itu sekitar pukul 22.00 WITA polisi melakukan penangkapan terhadap Pemohon di rumahnya.Hal ini kemudian yang oleh pihak keluarga Pemohon merasa janggal, sebab semua proses terasa sangat cepat. Bahkan dari dijemput hampir tengah malam, hingga gugatan ini dibacakan pada tanggal 10 Februari 2025 lalu, pihak Pemohon dan keluarga merasa tidak pernah mendapat penjelasan dari pihak kepolisian. Sehubungan hal ini hakim kemudian telah mempelajari dan memeriksa setidaknya belasan alat bukti surat dari pemohon dan termohon serta ditambah dua orang saksi. Pada sidang pertama berpedoman dengan Pasal 82 ayat (1) KUHAP, hakim juga sudah meminta keterangan para pihak. Dimana terungkap dugaan telah terjadi perdamaian. Oleh karena itu Hakim secara ex-officio meminta kepada Termohon agar menghadirkan pula korban di persidangan pembuktian pada tanggal 12 Februari 2025.Setelah dipelajari semua bukti-bukti, ternyata kasus ini didakwa dengan Pasal 351 Ayat (1) KUHP yang saat ini umumnya diselesaikan secara keadilan restoratif. Saat diperiksa di persidangan pun korban menyatakan sudah ikhlas memaafkan Pemohon dan tidak ingin lagi kasus ini dilanjutkan. Setali tiga uang, selama ini pihak kepolisian juga menunggu-nunggu pihak korban untuk mencabut laporannya. Sayangnya, hingga gugatan praperadilan ini sampai ke tangan polisi, pihak korban tidak kunjung datang. Ternyata hal inilah yang menjadi kendala utama pihak polisi menghentikan kasus ini dengan Keadilan Restoratif sesuai Peraturan Kapolri Nomor 8 Tahun 2021. Terungkap, bukan karena korban tidak mau memaafkan atau karena beratnya tindak pidana namun hanya terkendala masalah administratif. Belakangan juga terungkap kenapa korban tidak kunjung mencabut laporannya, karena korban tidak paham jika dia harus mencabut laporannya setelah terjadi perdamaian. Menurut Hakim Praperadilan a quo, hal ini harus segera disikapi, sebab Pemohon dengan segala kondisinya sudah berhak menempuh proses keadilan restoratif berdasarkan Perkap 8/2021.Dalam pertimbangannya hakim menegaskan “sesungguhnya hal-hal yang bersifat administrasi tidak dapat mengurangi hak-hak seorang warga negara yang secara syarat materiil maupun formiil dirinya sudah berhak (memenuhi syarat RJ sesuai Perkap 8/2021). Apalagi di dalam penegakan hukum pidana hal-hal yang hendak dicapai adalah kebenaran secara materiil atau keberanan yang betul-betul diyakini terjadi”. Apa yang dialami oleh Pemohon hemat Hakim adalah sebuah penundaan keadilan yang bisa berujung sangat merugikan. Sejak semula seharusnya kasus ini sudah dihentikan, namun karena keraguan polisi pada masalah administrasi akhirnya Pemohon harus terkatung-katung nasibnya di dalam sel tahanan.Menutup pertimbangannya Hakim menegaskan “bahwa memperhatikan analisa hukum dan fakta-fakta yang sudah diuraikan di atas maka sudah sepantasnya proses penyidikan dalam perkara ini tidak dilanjutkan karena adanya perdamaian di antara kedua belah pihak. Dengan menghentikan penyidikan tentu penetapan tersangka terhadap Pemohon juga tidak berlaku atau hilang status tersangkanya, menunda proses ini sama saja dengan mengbaikan keadilan bagi Pemohon maupun korban yang sudah saling berdamai, justice delayed is justice denied. Sebab jika dilanjutkanpun proses penuntutan maka perkara ini juga akan berakhir sama dengan mekanisme keadilan restrotatif yang ada pada kejaksaan”.Atas hal ini kemudian hakim mengabulkan gugatan praperadilan Pemohon dengan alasan utama telah terjadinya keadilan restoratif dan membebaskan pemohon seketika dari tahanan setelah putusan diucapkan (Humas PN Larantuka).