Analisis Yuridis terhadap Efektivitas Mediasi dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbuatan Melawan Hukum berdasarkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2016

Abstract

The large number of unlawful act (tort) lawsuits filed in court each year often results in an overwhelming case backlog that remains unresolved, making mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism increasingly crucial to examine. Although Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2016 mandates mediation in every civil court proceeding, in practice, efforts to achieve a settlement deed (akta perdamaian) in unlawful act cases frequently reach a deadlock. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mediation implementation and to identify the main obstacles that cause the process to function merely as an administrative formality. Employing a normative juridical research method with an analytical approach, this research examines statutory regulations and relevant legal literature concerning dispute resolution mechanisms. The findings reveal that the lack of good faith on the part of disputing parties remains the most dominant factor hindering the mediation process. This issue is further exacerbated by the nature of unlawful act disputes, which often involve emotional dimensions and immaterial damages that are difficult to quantify in precise monetary terms. Additionally, many litigants still perceive mediation as a procedural burden that prolongs legal proceedings rather than as an opportunity to resolve conflicts amicably. As an implication, this study recommends refining the criteria of good faith within the existing regulatory framework to strengthen the binding force of mediation processes. The role of judge-mediators should also be enhanced through more persuasive and facilitative approaches to effectively bridge the parties interests. Strengthening these aspects is expected to shift public perception toward prioritizing amicable settlement, thereby fostering dispute resolution that is more efficient, fair, and capable of providing genuine legal certainty.