Analisis Putusan Pengadilan Agama Mataram Nomor 449/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Mtr tentang Sengketa Akad Musyarakah Menurut Hukum Ekonomi Syariah

Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh adanya putusan majelis hakim Pengadilan Agama Mataram tentang sengketa akad musyarakah yang menurut hipotesis penulis tidak sesuai dengan konsep musyarakah dan hifdz al-mal (pemeliharaan terhadap harta) dalam Hukum Ekonomi Syariah. Fokus kajian dalam penelitian ini adalah untuk menjawab beberapa pertanyaan berikut: (1) Bagaimana putusan hakim dalam perkara Nomor 449/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Mtr, tentang penyelesaian sengketa pembiayaan akad musyarakah? (2) Bagaimana putusan tersebut jika ditinjau menurut teori akad musyarakah dalam Hukum Ekonomi Syariah? (3) Bagaimana putusan tersebur jika ditinjau menurut maqashid syariah (hifdz al-mal/pemeliharaan terhadap harta)? Penelitian ini adalah penelitian deskriptif normative yang mengandalkan data kepustakaan (library research), dimana untuk menjawab permasalahan peneliti menggunakan pendekatan studi kasus dan juga pendekatan perbandingan. Hasil penelitian ini antara lain: (1) Amar Putusan Nomor 449/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Mtr, majelis hakim Pengadilan Agama Mataram memutuskan tuntutan provisi tidak dapat diterima, menolak seluruh eksepsi Tergugat 2, dan mengabulkan gugatan Penggugat untuk sebagian dengan menyatakan tidak sah secara hukum tagihan kepada Penggugat sebesar Rp138.518.548.169,56, sedangkan gugatan selain dan selebihnya ditolak, serta menghukum Penggugat untuk membayar biaya perkara sejumlah Rp251.000,00. (2) Putusan tersebut tidak selaras dengan Fatwa DSN-MUI No. 8 Tahun 2000, KHES, dan fiqh muamalah karena memperlakukan akad musyarakah dengan logika qardh melalui penetapan angsuran pasti dan pengesahan eksekusi Hak Tanggungan tanpa menguji unsur ta‘addi atau taqṣir serta mengabaikan prinsip profit and loss sharing, audit rugi-laba, kontribusi amal, dan kondisi force majeure, sehingga mengalihkan seluruh business risk kepada nasabah dan menegasikan esensi ikhtilath harta. (3) Implementasi hifdz al-mal baru terpenuhi secara parsial pada tingkatan daruriyyat dalam aspek perlindungan dari tagihan fiktif, tetapi gagal pada tingkatan hajiyyat karena tidak menghilangkan kesulitan nasabah dan pada tahsiniyyat karena mengabaikan etika transparansi serta keadilan kemitraan, sehingga putusan belum mewujudkan hifdz al-mal secara komprehensif sebagai instrumen kemaslahatan duniawi dan ukhrawi.

================================================================================================

This research is motivated by a decision by the panel of judges at the Mataram Religious Court regarding a musyarakah contract dispute, which, according to the author's hypothesis, does not conform to the concepts of musyarakah and hifdz al-mal (property preservation) in Sharia Economic Law. The focus of this study was to answer the following questions: (1) What is the judge's decision in case Number 449/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Mtr regarding the resolution of a musyarakah financing dispute? (2) How does this decision relate to the theory of musyarakah contracts in Sharia Economic Law? (3) How is the decision reviewed according to the maqashid sharia (hifdz al-mal/maintenance of assets)? This research is a normative descriptive research that relies on library data (library research), where to answer the problem, the researcher uses a case study approach and also a comparative approach. The results of this research included: (1) Decision Number 449/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Mtr, the panel of judges at the Mataram Religious Court decided that the provisional claim was unacceptable, rejected all of Defendant 2’s exceptions, and granted the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in part by declaring the bill to the Plaintiff of Rp. 138,518,548,169.56 legally invalid, while the claims other than and the rest were rejected, and sentenced the Plaintiff to pay court costs of Rp. 251,000.00. (2) The decision is not in line with the DSN-MUI Fatwa No. 8 of 2000, KHES, and fiqh muamalah because they treat musyarakah contracts with the logic of qardh through the determination of fixed installments and the ratification of the execution of Mortgage Rights without examining the elements of ta’addi or taqṣir and ignoring the principles of profit and loss sharing, profit and loss audits, charitable contributions, and force majeure conditions, thereby transferring all business risks to customers and negating the essence of ikhtilath harta. (3) The implementation of hifdz al-mal has only been partially fulfilled at the daruriyyat level in the aspect of protection from fictitious bills but has failed at the hajiyyat level because it does not eliminate customer difficulties and at the tahsiniyyat level because it ignores the ethics of transparency and fairness of partnership, so that the decision has not yet realized hifdz al-mal comprehensively as an instrument for worldly and hereafter benefits.