Download Bukti Potong
| Nama |
|---|
| NIP |
|---|
| NPWP |
|---|
| Alamat |
|---|
| Tahun |
|---|
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the success of mandatory mediation by PERMA No.01 of 2008 in the District Court of Samarinda and what factors are causing the failure of mediation and what efforts have been in this District Court in improving the integration of mediation in the scope of their judicial effort. The causes of the failure of mediation required by PERMA No. 01 of 2008 in the District Court of Samarinda is caused by civil disputes which have been submitted to the Court of Samarinda in fact previously been attempted in a peaceful settlement in the family amicably, officials of Village or Urban Village, and head of sub district or sub-district officers, but because of a failed mediation makes the party does not want to return to mediation in the District Court of Samarinda. In addition to the factors that the parties did not want to communicate, because of a feeling or sense of excessive pride by themselves so that the parties can lead to bad faith of the parties which resulted in the failure of the mediation process. As in practice also the attitude of the parties and their attorneys assumed peace efforts through the process of mediation in court merely a formality and only delaying the time to reach the litigation process.
In this regard the efforts that have been taken by the District Court of Samarinda in maximizing the mediation process required by PERMA No. 01 of 2008 in order to achieve the principle of justice: fast, simple, and low cost, Courts Samarinda attempt to conduct monitoring and evaluation of the work mediators, improve the integrity of capabilities, knowledge and skills training mediators to judge mediator or not listed on Court of Samarinda. In addition, the District Court also seeks to increase the number of non-judge mediator because more mediator Judges have little time to focus to mediate the parties, due to must deal with handling other cases that had accumulated in the District Court of Samarinda. Based on these results it can be concluded that the integration of mediation to Justice by the Criminal Procedure Article 130 HIR/154 RBg and PERMA No. 01 of 2008 on mediation procedure in the courts could reduce the accumulation Samarinda case in the District Court and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, although still significant, but in the presence of both these settings can still provide benefits for all of us, because the settlement through the mediation process could create social harmony, justice fast, simple, and low cost.
Kata kunci: aspek yuridis, mediasi
