SHARIAsource

The Court noted that the appellant had lodged his complaint as illegal misconduct (perbuatan melawan hukum), something outside the jurisdiction of the religious courts. It acknowledged, however, that the basis of the appellant's claim did indeed constitute a shari'a economy case, for the purposes of the elucidation of Law No. 3 of 2006, art 49(22)(i). This was because the basis of the appellant's claim derived from a Murabahah (sale-purchase) financial agreement, and a power of attorney, which the appellant believed to be legally invalid. Under the power of attorney, the respondent was authorised to sell, transfer and relinquish all rights over a parcel of land to any person, including itself, if the appellant had failed to pay its debt owing to the respondent. The appellant submitted, however, that as he had signed the agreement without properly understanding its content and effect, it, along with the Murabahah agreement, should be declared null and void. The Court disagreed with the appellant, upholding the ruling of the lower court.

The plaintiff submitted that he and the defendant (bank) had entered into a Murabahah (sale-purchase) agreement on 25 July 2013, pursuant to which the plaintiff owed to the defendant IDR 415 million. As a security, the plaintiff leveraged his property. Over a period of 60 months, the plaintiff had agreed to make monthly repayments of IDR 6,950,000. Over the first 12 months the plaintiff successfully made these monthly repayments, which totalled IDR 83,4000,000. When the plaintiff's business suffered from the late arrival of certain stock, however, the plaintiff defaulted on his payments over three months in 2014, causing the defendant to exercise the option to auction the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff submitted the defendant's actions were reactionary and dismissive of his attempts to negotiate with the defendant for more time. They also denied the plaintiff his right, under art 18 of the agreement, to deliberative dispute resolution.

As both parties failed to attend court, however, the court ruled a mistrial and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs.

The defendants were prepared to resolve the dispute at hand, as per the statement of claim, in a reconciliatory manner. The settlement agreed to was as follows:

1. To pay their remaining debt to the plaintiff (IDR 561,940,320) and the plaintiff's legal fees (IDR 28 million) by 14 April 2015;
2. To make payment directly to the plaintiff or through their legal advisor, including the necessary stamp duty;
3. In the event the defendants were unable to make payment, they were to grant the plaintiff permission to auction their secured assets, namely, a parcel of land;
4. The proceeds from any auction would be used to cover the defendants' debt of IDR 589,940,320, with any remaining monies to be transferred to the defendants; and
5. Any incidental costs incurred by the plaintiff were to be borne by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement and ordered the defendants to pay costs.

The defendants were prepared to resolve the dispute at hand, as per the statement of claim, in a reconciliatory manner. The settlement agreed to was as follows:

1. To pay their remaining debt to the plaintiff of IDR 1,118,489,155.08, comprising the remainder of their shari'a account financing (IDR 993,357,931.08), profit arrears (IDR 75,131,224), and plaintiff's legal fees (IDR 50 million), payable by 14 April 2015;
2. To make payment directly to the plaintiff or through their legal advisor, including the necessary stamp duty;
3. In the event the defendants were unable to make payment, they were to grant the plaintiff permission to auction their secured assets, namely, three parcels of land;
4. The proceeds from any auction would be used to cover the defendants' debt of IDR 1,118,489,155.08, with any remaining monies to be transferred to the defendants; and
5. Any incidental costs incurred by the plaintiff were to be borne by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement and ordered the defendants to pay costs.

This fatwa acknowledges shari'a bank account financing (Pembiayaan Rekening Koran Syariah - PRKS) as a form of financing based on shari'a principles. It acknowledges the partnership involved in creating such an agreement, as well as how profits and losses are borne by the parties to the agreement, pursuant to an agreed-upon ratio. In the event of a dispute, and assuming initial deliberative measures prove unsuccessful, the parties to such an agreement are to resolve that dispute before a religious court or the Shari'a Arbitration Body (Badan Arbitrasi Syariah).

The defendants, following formal mediation, agreed to settle on the following terms:

1. To pay their primary debt to the plaintiff of IDR 935,224,710, comprising their primary debt (IDR 799,902,502,508), profit arrears (IDR 91,322,202.98), and plaintiff's legal fees (IDR 44 million), payable by 15 March 2015;
2. To make payment directly to the plaintiff, or through their legal advisor or the Purwokerto Religious Court registrar, including the necessary stamp duty;
3. In the event the defendants were unable to make payment, they were to grant the plaintiff permission to auction their secured assets, namely, a parcel of land;
4. The proceeds from any auction would be used to cover the defendants' debt of IDR 935,224,710, with any remaining monies to be transferred to the defendants; and
5. Any incidental costs incurred by the plaintiff were to be borne by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement and ordered the defendants to pay costs.

The appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Medan Religious Court (lower court), which had declared the first appellant's auctioning of the respondents' property invalid, on the grounds that the lower court did not have the jurisdiction to make such judgment.

The court placed great emphasis on the actual transaction (akad) agreed to by the parties, stating that for a dispute between a creditor and debtor to be completely resolved, adherence to the relevant terms of the agreement was of paramount importance. Article 17(3) of the parties' Murabahah agreement provided that, in the event of a dispute, and if deliberative measures had failed, the parties would seek to resolve the dispute before the National Shari'a Arbitration Board (Basyarnas). Article 17(4) then compelled the parties to treat any decision from Basyarnas as first and final.

The court, pursuant to art 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang Undang Hukum Perdata), found art 17 to be legally binding on the parties. Moreover, it cited a fatwa of the National Shari'a Council (Dewan Syari'ah Nasional), which cited verse 1 of Surat Al-Maidah from the Qur'an, which asks believers to abide by, and implement, the agreements they make. Accordingly, the court found that the lower court was precluded from serving as a forum to resolve the parties' dispute. Indeed, the court noted that it was common knowledge in the judiciary, especially in the religious judiciary, that when investigating shari'a economy-related disputes, deference to contractual terms relating to dispute resolution was unequivocal.

This fatwa sets out the key requirements of murabahah banking practices. Among other points, it acknowledges the utility of sale-purchase (murabahah) principles, prohibits interest-bearing practices (riba), encourages transparency and full-disclosure from shari'a financial institutions, and encourages customer accountability vis-a-vis ensuing repayments to shari'a financial institutions.

The plaintiff withdrew its case before the court had issued its judgment. It was, therefore, deemed to have withdrawn its claim within time.

For relevant facts, see Purbalingga Religious Court Decision No. 1721 of 2013.

The appellant successfully sought an interlocutory order, which required the judge of the lower court (Purbalingga Religious Court) to reopen the proceeding, summons both the appellant and respondent, and seek the following:

1. an explanation regarding the object of the ijarah and in whose possession the item was;
2. an explanation on the meaning of a sentence contained in the relevant multi-service ijarah financing agreement dated 13 September 2011, which stated that the customer, in developing his business, had submitted a request to the bank to obtain a multi-service ijarah financing agreement, the profit from which would be shared propotionally between the bank and customer in accordance with the extent of the financing from the bank and capital from the customer.

With that in consideration, the appellant sought to overturn the decision of the lower court on the grounds that inappropriate evidence had been submitted by the respondent, and evidence not submitted had been considered by the lower court in its judgment. Firstly, the appellants claimed, the written evidence submitted related to another debtor. Second, the lower court had considered witness evidence, whereas the respondent had not submitted any witness information as evidence. Third, the respondent as creditor had decided that the appellants had defaulted on their loan, whereas evidence had been submitted that the customer was considered to have been negligent or to have repudiated the agreement if payment was late.

The lower court had ordered the appellants to pay to the respondent IDR 252,393,450 to cover its financial loss based on their repudiation of the agreement. The court, however, found this to be an oppressive order, as making the appellants pay the whole sum back was contrary to the instalment plan (IDR 4,166,667 per month, plus a IDR 3 million fee or ujroh, for 60 months payable on the 13th of each month) to which the parties had agreed.

The court found that the lower court was correct in finding that the appellants had defaulted on their loan repayments. It opted, however, to enforce the instalment plan against the appellants, rather than ordering them to pay a lump sum. It dismissed the other appellants' other objections.

The plaintiff submitted that, pursuant to a multi-service ijarah financing agreement (dated 13 September 2011), the first defendant, in agreement with the second defendant as his wife, received IDR 250 million from the plaintiff, and agreed to pay an ujrah (fee) of IDR 180 million. The term of the agreement was from 13 September 2011-13 September 2016, and the monies were to be used to cover print media costs to advertise the defendants' business. After the defendants defaulted on repayments, the plaintiff sent to the defendants several reminder notices and a subpoena. Despite being granted these opportunities by the plaintiff to make the necessary payments, the defendants failed to act, even by the time the plaintiff had filed its claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a shari'a economy-related dispute claim, in accordance with art 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006 on the Religious Judiciary, in conjunction with art 55(1) of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Shari'a Banking.

In his written response to the plaintiff's claim, the first defendant explained his own financial hardships, and asserted that the ways in which the plaintiff had sought payment from someone in his predicament were inferior to those of a conventional bank. For example, the first defendant told the court that the plaintiff, which he had authorised to sell four shophouses he owned to pay any debts emerging from this agreement, offered the same price he had received for six other shophouses he had sold five years ago. The first defendant also alleged that the plaintiff had only ever sought its profit from the agreement, an agreement he had never properly understood, rather than inquiring into the defendants' hardships. Moreover, over two years, the first defendant had paid approximately IDR 60 million in interest (bunga), and had been ordered to pay another IDR 257 million, as well as the principal debt, meaning he had had to pay IDR 115 million over two years. The first defendant was astounded when he compared this with what a conventional bank would have charged (0.9-1 percent interest per month). The first defendant also told the court of his excellent credit history with other banks. The first defendant requested that the court dismiss the plaintiff's claim and, in order to repay the debt and to continue to pay the plaintiff in accordance with the agreement, provide him an opportunity to sell his shophouses for a reasonable price, as well as an opportunity for his business to grow.

The court, citing the Qur'an and arts 21(b), 44 and 46 of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah), opted to enforce the agreement against the defendants, ordering them to pay IDR 252,393,450.

This Supreme Court regulation stipulates that the religious (Islamic) judiciary, when examining, adjudicating and resolving shari'a economy-related cases, is to use the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws as its guide.

Book I of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) covers what constitutes a legal subject before the religious courts in shari'a economy-related disputes, as well as property deriving from trusts (amwal).

Book II of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) covers the types of agreements (akad) permitted under Islamic law in Indonesia, as well as the ways in which they are implemented, disputed, resolved, and the rights attached therein.

Book III of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) covers the provision of alms (zakat), as well as the making of gift (hibah).

Book IV of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) deals specifically with shari'a accounting, covering topics including financing, accounts payable, obligations, non-binding investments, and Islamic philanthropy (zakat, infaq, and sadaqah).

For relevant facts see Purbalingga Religious Court Decision No. 1721 of 2013.

The appellant was granted an interlocutory order, which required the judge of the lower court (Purbalingga Religious Court) to reopen the proceeding, summons both the appellant and respondent, and seek the following:

1. an explanation regarding the object of the ijarah and in whose possession the item was;
2. an explanation on the meaning of a sentence contained in the relevant multi-service ijarah financing agreement dated 13 September 2011, which stated that the customer, in developing his business, had submitted a request to the bank to obtain a multi-service ijarah financing agreement, the profit from which would be shared propotionally between the bank and customer in accordance with the extent of the financing from the bank and capital from the customer.

On 20 September 2013, the appellant secured finance from the respondent for IDR 332.5 million via a Murabahah financial agreement, leveraging a property he owned in Jambi. In May 2014, he informed the respondent that, owing to financial difficulties, he would be unable to make that month's repayment. Pursuant to art 18(1) of the 20 September 2013 agreement, the appellant sought to consult with the respondent in order to be released from the agreement. The respondent, however, was not forthcoming. Again in June 2014, the plaintiff defaulted, and on 2 July 2014 received a reminder notice from the respondent. After unsuccessfully seeking finances from a third party, on 22 July 2014, the appellant received a second reminder notice. This prompted the appellant to seek to sell the secured property under the table, so to speak, given that the property was worth far more than the debt the appellant owed to the respondent. The respondent, however, did not take up the appellant's proposal. On 12 August 2014, the plaintiff received from the respondent a notice informing him that he had until 19 August 2014 to repay the debts he owed the respondent, otherwise his property would be auctioned. While the appellant sought to restructure the agreement with the respondent, the respondent did not accede to the appellant's request. The appellant submitted that the respondent's refusal to allow him to sell his property under the table contravened art 20(2) of Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgages of Land and Fixtures, and sought from the Court an order to grant him permission to sell his property under the table to pay his debts.

The appellant's claim before the Jambi Religious Court (lower court) had been dismissed. He sought to challenge the lower court's decision on the grounds that it lacked legal reasoning and references to the relevant legislative sections, that the lower court had incorrectly applied procedure by not including the relevant events and responses, and that it had failed to adjudicate the claim in its entirety. The Court concurred with the reasons for appeal. It found that the lower court had erred in finding that the appellant had no legal standing and that his claim lacked clartity. It did, however, dismiss the appeal for two reasons:

1. the appellant's claim lacked a legal basis; and
2. on the facts, the respondent was right to enforce its contractual rights pursuant to the agreement.

This qanun regulates the various baitul mal (treasury or exchequer) of Aceh, their responsibilities, authority, and the personnel associated therein. The various baitul mal store and manage the alms and donations (zakat and wakaf) made by the Acehnese people in execution of their charitable obligations as Muslims. The qanun also authorises Indonesian state police officials and civil servant investigators to investigate contraventions of provisions relating to the management of alms, and prescribes a variety of punitive measures, including caning, monetary fines, and imprisonment.

This statute regulates the obligation on all Muslims to give zakat (alms) to charity. It defines the different types of zakat, who collects zakat, and who supervises its collection.