Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Model Single Bar System Organisasi Advokat Indonesia dalam Meningkatkan Profesionalisme Sanaya Ulfah, Alia; Supriyatna, Dadang; Mulyadi
Karimah Tauhid Vol. 3 No. 4 (2024): Karimah Tauhid
Publisher : Universitas Djuanda

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30997/karimahtauhid.v3i4.13094

Abstract

Keberadaan organisasi advokat muncul sejak zaman kolonialisme, namun dalam praktik dan perjalanannya dipenuhi polemik dan kerap berhujung pada perpecahan. Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2003 tentang Advokat menjadikan kesinambungan anatara Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2003 tentang Advokat dengan praktik dilapangan dari berbagai organisasi dalam menjalankan fungsi dan kewenangannya guna meningkatkan kualitas dan profesionalisme advokat yang tidak merujuk pada sistem yang terstandarisasi. Tujuan penelitian ini yakni menganalisis eksistensi organisasi advokat Indonesia dengan mengkaji analisis model single bar system organisasi advokat Indonesia guna meningkatkan profesionalisme. Metode yang digunakan adalah yuridis empiris, penelitian ini termasuk dalam penelitian deskriptif analisis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan perdebatan mengenai single bar system dengan multy bar system masih menjadi polemik. Dalam hal ini single bar system perlu diterapkan pada ranah regulator, yang memiliki wewenang menetukan standar profesi advokat yang sama, baik dalam melaksanakan Pendidikan Khusus Profesi Advokat (PKPA), Ujian Profesi Advokat (UPA), menentukan standar kelulusan, serta dalam penyumpahan hingga pemberhentian advokat.
The Role of Mediators in Assisting in Settlement Civil Cases in Court Habib, Yahya Abdul; Supriyatna, Dadang
International Journal of Business, Law, and Education Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024): International Journal of Business, Law, and Education
Publisher : IJBLE Scientific Publications Community Inc.

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56442/ijble.v5i2.739

Abstract

The implementation of Mediation is regulated in Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures and has been carried out in accordance with applicable provisions starting from the pre-mediation stages, the mediation process, mediation reaching an agreement, mediation not reaching an agreement, and the end of the mediation. The mediator has a role as a neutral party who can perform a role according to his capacity with a number of skills, which are obtained from education, training and experience in resolving conflicts or disputes. Meanwhile, its function is to improve various communication weaknesses between the parties which usually have obstacles and psychological barriers, as well as encouraging the creation of a conducive atmosphere for starting negotiations, providing insight into the process and substance of ongoing negotiations, clarifying substantial issues and respective interests. each of the parties. The obstacle found in the mediation process was that the parties felt that their legal interests were not being met, as a result there was no meeting of mind and agreement to resolve the problem based on the principle of a win-win solution. The solution to overcome obstacles in mediation is Article 13 paragraph (1) PERMA No.1 In 2016, basically a Mediator is a person who is not a Judge who has received and obtained a Mediator certificate from an institution that has been accredited by the Supreme Court, however there are exceptions to this article which in the previous regulations,  namely PERMA No. 1 of 2008 Article 5 paragraph (2) is also regulated, which provides leeway if in a judicial environment there is no certified Mediator, then the Judge who is in that judicial environment based on the decision of the Chief of Court can become a Mediator