Publication Search

This study examines the comparison between litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in resolving business conflicts in Indonesia. The increasingly complex nature of business activities has led to a variety of conflicts, such as breach of contract, share ownership disputes, and payment issues, which require efficient resolution methods that provide legal certainty. This study aims to explore the characteristics, procedures, advantages, and disadvantages of dispute resolution through litigation and ADR, which include negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. The method applied is normative juridical, drawing on legislation, legal doctrine, and relevant literature. The research findings indicate that litigation offers stronger legal certainty through binding court decisions and organized procedures, but is often time-consuming, expensive, and produces win-lose outcomes. On the other hand, ADR offers flexibility, confidentiality, efficiency, and the opportunity to reach mutually beneficial solutions, although in some situations it requires court confirmation for enforcement. Therefore, the choice of dispute resolution method needs to be adjusted to the nature of the conflict, the relationship between the parties, and the need for legal certainty.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui Bagaimana Penyelesaian sengketa Informasi (PSI) Publik melalui Ajudikasi Non Litigasi berbasis konsep  Pelayan Publik  yang Adaptif oleh Komisi Informasi Jawa Timur. Dalam Penelitian ini Analisa yang digunakan melaui pendekatan  Teori Peran (Anis Rachma Utary, 2014)   yang  berkaitan dengan judul serta menggunakan Metode Pendekatan Kualitatif yang bersifat Deskriptif (Sugiyono, 2017). Observasi yang dilakukan dengan melakukan metode wawancara  (M.Nazir, 2017) pada  6  orang informan yang mengetahui  masalah penelitian.Dari Hasil Observasi yang dilakukan terkait indikator  Dimensi yang ada yaitu : Regulatory Role; Enabling Role; Direct Provision of  good and Services, 2 (dua) indikator  menunjukan bahwa Penyelesaian Sengketa Informasi melalui Ajudikasi Non Litigasi sudah tercapai dengan baik sesuai pendekatan indikator yang ada diantaranya melalui kesepakatan damai (Mediasi) dan pencabutan gugatan. Salah satu indikator tidak tercapai karena pengelolaan penyelesaian sengketa tidak menunjukan hasil yang maksimal dalam total  jumlah kesepakatan damai (mediasi) dan total jumlah pencabutan gugatan, namun secara keseluruhan berdasarkan pendekatan teori yang ada, Penyelesaian sengketa Informasi (PSI) Publik melalui Ajudikasi Non Litigasi berbasis Pelayan Publik  yang Adaptif sudah sesuai. Kata Kunci : Penyelesaian sengketa Informasi Publik, Komisi Informasi, Ajudikasi Non Litigasi

The changes to the provisions on evidence in the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) mark a significant shift in the evidentiary system under Indonesian criminal procedure. The expansion of evidence to include physical evidence as valid evidence, the explicit recognition of electronic evidence, judicial observation, and other evidence as long as it is legally obtained, alters the evidentiary system, which previously relied on classical categories. This situation raises questions about how these changes affect the evidentiary system and the dynamics of criminal litigation in court, particularly regarding the role of judges, the strategies of the parties, and the protection of the defendant's rights. This study aims to analyze the changes in the evidentiary system resulting from the addition of evidence in the new KUHAP and its impact on criminal litigation practices. The research method used is a normative juridical approach with descriptive specifications through a literature review of relevant laws and legal literature. The analysis shows that the expansion of evidence increases the complexity of the evidence, strengthens the role of judges in assessing the legality and authentication of evidence, and encourages a shift in the litigation strategies of prosecutors and advocates. The addition of evidence has the potential to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement, but also raises the risk of legal uncertainty and human rights violations if not supported by adequate technical guidelines and oversight mechanisms.