cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
MOH. LU'AY KHOIRONI
Contact Email
jurnal.adhaper@gmail.com
Phone
+6281252568899
Journal Mail Official
jurnal.adhaper@gmail.com
Editorial Address
Jl. Progo No. 17 Bandung (Biro Bantuan Hukum Universitas Padjadjaran)
Location
,
INDONESIA
ADHAPER
Published by Asosiasi Dosen Hukum Acara Perdata
ISSN : 24429090     EISSN : 25799509     DOI : https://doi.org/10.36913/adhaper
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata focuses on publishing scientific articles based on research, conceptual studies, and critical analyses in the field of law, particularly Civil Procedure Law and Dispute Resolution. This journal aims to support the development of legal science and contribute to solving current legal issues in society, both in local, national, and international contexts, including: 1. Civil Procedure Law 2. Civil Procedure Law Development 3. Normative and Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure Law 4. Principles of Civil Procedure Law 5. Alternative Dispute Resolution 6. Court Decision (Civil Disputes) 7. Comparative Civil Procedure Law
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 11 No. 02 (2025): Desember" : 5 Documents clear
THE APPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CONSUMER DISPUTE RESOLUTION BASED ON LAW NUMBER 8 OF 1999 CONCERNING CONSUMER PROTECTION: PENERAPAN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KONSUMEN BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 8 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN Wirotomo, Heristiawan Aryo; Marsudi Dedi Putra
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol. 11 No. 02 (2025): Desember
Publisher : Asosiasi Dosen Hukum Acara Perdata (ADHAPER)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/adhaper.v11i02.1

Abstract

Consumer dispute resolution in Indonesia is explicitly regulated under Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, which provides space for non-litigation settlement through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The application of ADR, particularly through the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK), reflects the implementation of the principle of fast, simple, and low-cost justice as mandated in Article 2 paragraph (4) of Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. This research employs a normative legal method with a statute approach and a conceptual approach. Data were obtained from literature studies covering legislation, legal doctrines, and relevant court decisions. The results of the study indicate that ADR through BPSK serves as an effective mechanism to provide legal certainty, protect consumer rights, and ensure access to justice, particularly for consumers harmed by business actors. However, the effectiveness of ADR still faces several challenges, including limited human resources, low consumer awareness of ADR mechanisms, and the emerging complexity of disputes in the digital trade sector (e-commerce). Therefore, strategies to improve BPSK’s performance are required through regulatory optimization, the use of digital technology in dispute resolution, and capacity building of human resources, so that ADR mechanisms can become more adaptive, responsive, and relevant to the dynamics of consumer protection in Indonesia.
STUDY OF RELIGIOUS COURT JUDGES' DECISIONS ON POLYGAMY PERMITS REVIEW OF DECISION NUMBER 1749/Pdt.G/2018/Pa. Tbn AND DECISION NUMBER 2012/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Sby: STUDI PUTUSAN HAKIM PENGADILAN AGAMA TERHADAP IZIN POLIGAMI KAJIAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 1749/Pdt.G/2018/Pa. Tbn DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 2012/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Sby CHOIROTUNNISAH, FADILATIN
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol. 11 No. 02 (2025): Desember
Publisher : Asosiasi Dosen Hukum Acara Perdata (ADHAPER)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/adhaper.v11i02.8

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the differences in the judges' considerations in Decision Number 1749/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Tbn and Decision Number 2012/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Sby regarding polygamy requests based on high sexual desire. This research is normative in nature, using a legislative and case-based approach. The results of the research show that the judge in Decision Number 1749/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Tbn rejected the petition because the alternative requirements of Article 4 paragraph (2) and the cumulative requirements of Article 5 paragraph (1) were not met. The judge interpreted extensively that the wife's obligations were not limited to serving biological needs, and the petitioner's income was deemed insufficient. Conversely, in Decision Number 2012/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Sby, the petition was granted because the requirements of Article 4 paragraph (2) and Article 5 paragraph (1) were deemed to have been met. The judge made a teleological interpretation and assessed that the petitioner was financially capable and had met the requirements. The majority opinion of scholars regarding court decisions that reject or grant polygamy petitions is that some scholars allow polygamy as an alternative for men who have a strong desire, provided that they are fair and provide sufficient financial support, while some scholars do not allow polygamy if it is done for the reason of having a high biological desire but without a clear purpose. This disparity in decisions is due to legislation and requirements that originate from the judge himself.
GRANTED EXCEPTION DUE TO THE NEGATIVE STATEMENT IN PETITION AS AN EFFORT TO ENSURE LEGAL CERTAINTY IN INDONESIA: EKSEPSI SEBAGAI AKIBAT DARI PERNYATAAN NEGATIF DALAM PERMOHONAN SEBAGAI UPAYA UNTUK MENJAMIN KEPASTIAN HUKUM DI INDONESIA Listyani, Ajeng Aditya; Antonius Sidik Maryono; Sanyoto
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol. 11 No. 02 (2025): Desember
Publisher : Asosiasi Dosen Hukum Acara Perdata (ADHAPER)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/adhaper.v11i02.12

Abstract

Dispute resolution through the courts is carried out by filing a lawsuit against the party. The lawsuit is filed with the intention of obtaining legal protection for the rights of one party and forcing the other party to fulfill their obligations after the mediation process has failed. The lawsuit has to fulfill the formal and material requirements, including the formulation of the petition. The petition should not have a negative sentences structure and have to meet the formal requirements for the drafting of a petition. A negative petition gives the other party the opportunity to file an exception of lawsuit. This research was normative juridical research with analytical descriptive specifications. This research used a statutory approach and a case approach. The data used was secondary data with primary and secondary legal materials obtained from literature studies. The primary legal material is laws and regulations. Secondary legal materials are in the form of literature. The data was collected by the literature study method. The data was presented with normative text and analyzed with qualitative normative methods to obtain conclusions. The results of the study show that for petition that have negative sentences structure, the defendant can file an exception to the lawsuit and the legal consequence is that the lawsuit is declared Niet Onvankelijke Verklaard.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THE JOINDER OF CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNLAWFUL ACTS (Study of Decision Number: 4268 K/Pdt/2022): ANALISIS PUTUSAN HAKIM TERHADAP PENGGABUNGAN GUGATAN WANPRESTASI DAN PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM (Studi Putusan Nomor: 4268 K/Pdt/2022) aprillia, fany; Sumriyah
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol. 11 No. 02 (2025): Desember
Publisher : Asosiasi Dosen Hukum Acara Perdata (ADHAPER)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/adhaper.v11i02.14

Abstract

This paper analyzes the practice of combining breach of contract and tort lawsuits in Indonesia, with a focus on the Supreme Court Decision No. 4268 K/Pdt/2022. Initially, the case was qualified as a breach of contract by the District Court (Decision No. 48/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Bdg) and the High Court (Decision No. 115/Pdt/2021/PT.Bdg), but later requalified as a tort by the Supreme Court. This study aims to examine the practice of combining breach of contract and tort in Indonesian civil procedure and to analyze the judge’s considerations in changing the legal qualification. This research uses a normative juridical method with statutory and case approaches. Data were collected through literature study of primary legal materials. The analysis used is prescriptive analysis. The results show that in practice, the combination of breach of contract and tort claims is not permissible if they are not closely related, as it may lead to an unclear lawsuit. However, if both are closely connected, systematically separated, and clearly explained, such combination is allowed. In Decision No. 4268 K/Pdt/2022, the claim was considered valid because both legal bases were related to the same object and events, and were presented separately.
DESCENTE AND KONSTATERING: TWO DIRECT EXAMINATION PROCEDURES IN CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW THAT ARE SIMILAR BUT NOT THE SAME: DESCENTE DAN KONSTATERING : DUA PROSEDUR PEMERIKSAAN SECARA LANGSUNG DALAM HUKUM ACARA PERDATA YANG SERUPA TAPI TAK SAMA Sihotang, Paolo Omar; Soroinda, Disriani Latifah
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol. 11 No. 02 (2025): Desember
Publisher : Asosiasi Dosen Hukum Acara Perdata (ADHAPER)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/adhaper.v11i02.31

Abstract

Descente and constatation are two legal terms in civil procedure law that often cause confusion because they are considered to be the same but are actually different. This is because both descente and constatation involve direct examination conducted outside the courtroom. Descente or on-site inspection is regulated in Article 153 HIR/180 RBg. which is an action at the evidence stage in civil proceedings carried out by a judge outside the courtroom when necessary by directly visiting an object of examination at the location where the object is located, while constatering is an act of verification at the execution stage carried out by examining the object of examination directly at its location to ensure that the object is in accordance with what is stated in the court decision. The existence of descente is very important and even mandatory to provide clarity on an event in a civil trial as stipulated in the Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA), namely SEMA Number 7 of 2001, SEMA Number 10 of 2020. Likewise, the existence of constatering is also no less important. The Supreme Court, through the execution guidelines issued by the Directorate General of General Courts, requires the court to conduct constatering before the eviction execution is carried out. With constatation, the court ensures that the object being executed is in accordance with the verdict and prevents errors in execution and/or execution that exceeds the verdict. Research on descente and constatation is important to clearly identify the differences between the two. Research on descente and constatering is important so that the differences between the two can be clearly identified.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2025 2025


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 11 No. 02 (2025): Desember Vol. 11 No. 01 (2025): Juni Vol. 10 No. 02 (2024): Desember Vol. 10 No. 01 (2024): Juni Vol. 9 No. 02 (2023): Desember Vol. 9 No. 01 (2023): Juni