Abstract

The UUPK gives the authority to BPSK to summon witnesses in his trial. One of them is calling PPAT. Article 50 Permen ATR Number 2 Year 2018 concerning Development and Supervision of PPAT. PPAT called as witnesses can be given legal assistance in the investigation and / or expert testimony in court. The article only regulates legal assistance that can be given to PPAT in dispute resolution in court. There are no other articles that regulate summons or legal assistance for PPAT summons in resolving disputes outside the court. So there is a norm of emptiness. The problem is how is the authority of BPSK to call PPAT as a witness in dispute resolution through mediation outside the court and how is the obligation to keep the authentic PPAT deed confidential on dispute resolution through mediation outside the court. This study aims to analyze the authority of BPSK on the summons of PPAT as a witness in dispute resolution through mediation outside the court and analyze the obligation to keep PPAT authentic deeds confidential on dispute resolution through mediation outside the court. This research method uses normative juridical research methods. The approach used is the Legislative Approach, and Conceptual Approach. The results of this study are: First, the authority of BPSK to call PPAT as a witness in dispute resolution through mediation outside the court is an attribute authority granted by the UUPK as regulated in the provisions of Article 52 of the UUPK. Second, the obligation to keep an authentic PPAT deed in the resolution of disputes outside the court is a relative (relative) obligation, because the nature of the mediation trials outside the court is closed, confidential, consensual, collaborative. So, it does not cause conflicting interests. Keywords: BPSK, Authority, Witness, PPAT DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/98-06 Publication date: June 30th 2020

Concepts :

Access to Document

SDGs

Citations by Year