Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Academic problems stem from the results of sharia economic dispute decisions issued by the Surabaya High Religious Court (PTA) which do not fulfill the elements of certainty and justice, both at the normative (book in law) and implementation (law in action) legal levels. The losing parties can only file objections for simple cases and submit an appeal. So this is contrary to the principle of contante justice (speedy trial) in court. So the aim of this research is to analyze this. The method used in this research is normative juridical. The theories used in this research include the theory of legal certainty and justice, sulh theory, and the theory of judicial power. The research results prove that in order for the Surabaya High Religious Court (PTA) to be able to apply the principle of contante justitie (speedy trial) effectively, especially in deciding cases of sharia economic disputes, judges at the Surabaya PTA must be based on the basic principles of Islamic sharia, namely maqasid al-syariah In deciding the case, it includes: 1) not making things difficult ('adam al-haraj), 2) not reducing the burden (taqlil al-taklif), 3) Equality and Justice (al-Musawah wa al-Adalah).
Huda et al. (Sat,) studied this question.