"Should the Court grant our petition, to decide the dispute was settled only in religious courts, just ever been explained by experts presented by the Court."

 Similarly, Dadang Ahmad submitted as Applicant on Islamic Banking Act judicial review in the Constitutional Court (MK). Applicants submit demands for Islamic banking disputes involving Bank Muamalat, cannot be resolved in public courts but in the Religious. Petitioner believed, in accordance with the Islamic Sharia applied in Islamic Banking, all the conflict, should be resolved in the Religious better understand the ins and outs of sharia.

At a hearing last Tuesday morning (29/1), the Court presents Islamic banking experts, Syafii Antonio, who in his statement assessing the availability of two dispute resolution options mentioned in Islamic Banking Act will only lead to uncertainty which path should be taken to resolve the dispute between the bank and customers. He pointed out, in many cases, the losing party in the General Court will continue the process of law in the Religious, and vice versa, the losing party in the Religious will find legal loopholes in the General Court. Antonio worrying, if it is allowed to continue, it will create a climate that is not conducive to the national banking world.

He further suggested that in the future an agreement made by both parties, should be mentioned clearly which places the event of dispute settlement. If the case should be resolved in public courts, then both parties must comply with all the consequences arising. If the Religious If it had become a place of settlement, then the Religious institutions should be strengthened in order to have the human resources and legal instruments are more professional.

"To avoid disputes, the Court should revoke the letter D, the Court decided not settled in religion or in the General Court," she said.

Must be Completed Under Content Agreement

On the other hand, Mualimin Abdi from the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights in a question and answer session with the Media Court, rejected the circulation stigma, there are two choices of dispute resolution, has led to legal uncertainty. Precisely assess it, both of these options is a testament to the protection aspects of the law, which the parties can agree on where the final settlement of the dispute, without being compelled by the rules of the applicable legal norms.

"Because this is a civil case, so both parties can pursue the negotiation and mediation. Should both parties must agree on which would resolve the dispute, can the public courts and religious courts, that’s it! "She closed the conversation. (Juliette / mh)