摘要：Kepastian hukum dalam penyelesaian sengketa konsumen perbankan dalam penerapan Small Claims Court dan E-Litigation dalam penyelesaian sengeketa konsumen dalam perbankan demi terwujudnya peradilan cepat, sederhana, dan biaya ringan. Metode pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penulisan artikel ini bersifat yuridis normatif. Dengan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitis berupaya menggambarkan tema yang akan dibahas dengan dikaji secara normatif yang didasarkan pada data sekunder. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa kegiatan pada sektor perekonomian pada sektor perbankan banyak dikeluhkan konsumen seperti kasus kredit, pelelangan jaminan kredit, berkurangnya saldo tabungan, kartu kredit, sistem informasi debitur (SID); masih banyak konsumen bank yang menyelesaikan masalah hukum di Pengadilan dan atau di luar pengadilan yaitu melalui BPSK; pengajuan keberatan ke Pengadilan Negeri sampai pada tingkat kasasi di Mahkamah Agung. Banyak putusan BPSK dibatalkan Mahkamah Agung dengan dasar pertimbangan bahwa BPSK tidak berwenang memeriksa sengketa konsumen perbankan telah menunjukkan bahwa penyelesaian sengketa melalui BPSK belum berkepastian hukum yang berkeadilan bagi konsumen perbankan, sedangkan jika difasilitasi oleh OJK dan diselesaikan melalui LASPI terdapat keterbatasan mengingat LAPSPI hanya ada di Jakarta, sehingga membatasi aksesibilitas konsumen perbankan secara keseluruhan.
其他摘要：Legal certainty in resolving consumer banking disputes in the application of the
Small Claims Court and E-Litigation in the resolution of consumer trials in banking
for the realization of a quick, simple and low cost court. The method of approach
used in writing this article is normative juridical. With descriptive analytical
research specifications trying to describe the themes that will be discussed with
normative review based on secondary data. The results show that activities in the
economic sector in the banking sector are often complained by consumers such as
credit cases, auction of credit guarantees, reduced savings balances, credit cards,
debtor information systems (SID); there are still many bank consumers who resolve
legal issues in the Court and or outside the court, namely through BPSK; filing an
objection to the District Court up to the level of cassation in the Supreme Court.
Many decisions of the BPSK were overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis that
BPSK was not authorized to examine consumer banking disputes, indicating that
dispute resolution through BPSK had no legal certainty that was equitable for
banking consumers, whereas if facilitated by the OJK and resolved through LASPI,
there were limitations given that LAPSPI was only in Jakarta. , thereby limiting the
accessibility of banking consumers as a whole.
