Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
1.886
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata ADHAPER Nagari Law Review Unes Law Review Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata UNES Journal of Swara Justisia Lareh Law Review
Misnar Syam
Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Andalas, Indonesia
Education Environmental Science Health Professions Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Physics Public Health Social Sciences

Published : 15 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata ADHAPER

 1 
PENERAPAN ASAS PEMBALIKAN BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KONSUMEN Syam, Misnar
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol 4, No 1 (2018): Januari – Juni 2018
Publisher : Departemen Hukum Perdata

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (357.2 KB) | DOI: 10.36913/jhaper.v4i1.66

Abstract

Consumer dispute related to violation of the consumer rights by businessman. Article 45 of Consumer Protection Law provides that the dispute may be settled by out of court dispute settlement or through litigation. In Indonesia, out of court dispute settlement of consumer disputes is conducted under the authority of Consumer Disputes Settlement Body (BPSK), while in litigation mechanism exercised with submission by the consumer personally, class action, or NGO claim. Consumer dispute settlement is part of civil litigation. According to Article 163 HIR/ 283 RBg, the party who alleges that he has a right shall proof his allegation. While, according to Article 19(5) of Consumer Protection Law, the businessman may be exempted from its duty, if it can proof that the damages suffered by the consumer is because of the consumer fault itself. Therefore, the businessman must prove that it did not commit any fault (shifting the burden of proof). The principle of shifting the burden of proof has adopted by Consumer Protection Law because the consumer has no suffi  cient knowledge of materials, production process, and distribution process which done by the businessman regularly. The Consumer Protection Law has no clear provision on the implementation of shifting the burden of proof, while the same situation is also found in Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2006 concerning Appeal on the Judgment of BPSK. Thus, there are inconsistency implementations on the shifting of the burden of proof between on case by case. It depends on the comprehension knowledge of the judges. Such situation may lead to ineffective implementation of Consumer Protection Law.
KEDUDUKAN PARATE EKSEKUSI PADA JAMINAN FIDUSIA DENGAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019 Misnar Syam; Yussy Adelina Mannas
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol 8, No 1 (2022): Januari - Juni 2022
Publisher : Departemen Hukum Perdata

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/jhaper.v8i1.175

Abstract

Menurut Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia (selanjutnya disebut UUJF) mengatur tentang eksekusi objek jaminan fi dusia. Salah satunya adalah parate eksekusi. Berlakunya parate eksekusi ini karena adanya title eksekutorial pada sertifi kat jaminan fi dusia Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) UUJF diajukan yudicial review ke Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dasar permohonannya adalah Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) UUJF ini bertentangan dengan UUD 1945. Dalam putusannya MK mempertimbangkan asas kepastian hukum dan keadilan yang menjadi syarat fundamental berlakunya sebuah norma dari undang-undang. Frasa eksekutorial pada jaminan fi dusia sama dengan frasa putusan hakim yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dimaknai jika penyerahan objek jaminan fi dusianya diserahkan secara suka rela oleh debitor dan debitor mengakui telah cidera janji. Cidera janji (wanprestasi) tidak ditentukan secara sepihak oleh kreditor tetapi atas dasar kesepakatan antara kreditor dengan debitor atau atas dasar upaya hukum yang menentukan telah terjadinya cidera janji (wanprestasi). Kedudukan parate eksekusi dengan keluarnya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 tetap diakui dan dipertegas. Pelaksanaan eksekusinya dapat dilakukan dengan persyaratan debitor mengakui telah cidera janji dan secara suka rela menyerahkan objek jaminan fi dusianya. Parate eksekusi meskipun tetap ada tetapi dalam penerapannya menjadi sangat sulit karena persyaratan yang harus dipenuhi, sehingga eksekusi objek jaminan fi dusia akan tetap menggunakan fi at Ketua Pengadilan Negeri.
Co-Authors Andalusia, Andalusia Devianty Fitri Devianty Fitri Inayatul Husna Nanda Oetama Oktarina, Neneng Setiawan, Dian Bakti Ulfanora Ulfanora Ulfanora, Ulfanora Yasniwati, Yasniwati Zahara Zahara