Publication Search

Penelitian ini mengkaji kedudukan hukum dan implementasi intervensi pihak ketiga dalam hukum acara perdata di Indonesia melalui mekanisme voeging, vrijwaring, dan tussenkomst. Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh kompleksitas sengketa hukum kontemporer di mana putusan pengadilan sering kali berdampak pada pihak luar yang tidak tercantum dalam gugatan asal. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif melalui pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual, kajian ini membedah norma hukum positif dalam HIR, RBG, dan Rv serta doktrin peradilan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun ketiga prosedur tersebut merupakan instrumen penting untuk melindungi hak subjektif dan mewujudkan keadilan inklusif, penerapan praktisnya masih menghadapi hambatan berupa multitafsir terhadap batasan "kepentingan hukum". Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa sinkronisasi kriteria kepentingan hukum sangat krusial untuk mencegah upaya mengulur waktu (undue delay) serta memastikan putusan hakim bersifat eksekutorial dan komprehensif bagi seluruh subjek hukum yang terdampak.

This study examines the foundational framework and evolving dynamics of Indonesian civil procedural law (Hukum Acara Perdata) amid its transformation from colonial legal heritage toward a modern, digitalized justice system. Using normative-doctrinal legal research methodology combined with empirical court statistics from 2022–2024, the study analyzes four dimensions: (1) core procedural principles rooted in the HIR and RBg; (2) the mandatory mediation framework under PERMA No. 1 of 2016; (3) the evolution of evidence law toward electronic evidence under the amended UU ITE (Law No. 1 of 2024); and (4) mechanisms of judicial decisions and legal remedies. Findings show that e-court implementation has dramatically increased efficiency minutasi productivity rose from 64.35% (2022) to 96.50% (2024)—while 594,816 users registered through e-court by 2023. The study concludes that Indonesia’s civil procedural law is actively adapting to technological disruption, though structural challenges such as digital inequality, electronic evidence authentication gaps, and regulatory harmonization remain unresolved.

Land rights disputes arising from overlapping land certificates remain a complex agrarian law issue frequently encountered in Indonesia. This phenomenon reflects weaknesses in the land administration system, particularly in data collection, land measurement, and certificate issuance. Such disputes create conflicts, legal uncertainty, and reduced public trust in the land registration system. In practice, these disputes are generally resolved through civil litigation procedures in the District Court. This study aims to comprehensively analyze civil procedural law in resolving land rights disputes involving overlapping certificates and to examine the evidentiary strength of land certificates in judicial proceedings. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by primary and secondary legal materials. The findings indicate that dispute resolution begins with the filing of a lawsuit, followed by mediation, court examination, and the evidentiary process as the most crucial stage in determining lawful ownership. Land certificates serve as strong evidence; however, they are not absolute, as they may be challenged if administrative or substantive legal defects are identified. Judges play a central role in assessing certificate validity by considering land history, physical possession, good faith, and compliance with legal procedures. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of dispute resolution still requires improvement through better land administration, enhanced data accuracy, and stronger institutional integration.

The development of information and communication technology has increased the use of electronic documents in legal and business activities, thereby affecting the evidentiary system in Indonesian civil procedural law. This study aims to analyze the legal regulation of electronic evidence and its evidentiary strength in resolving civil cases under Indonesian civil procedural law. The research method used is normative juridical research with statutory and library research approaches. The data were obtained from primary and secondary legal materials and analyzed qualitatively. The results show that electronic evidence has been legally recognized through Law Number 11 of 2008 in conjunction with Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions. Its evidentiary strength has the same legal position as other forms of evidence as long as it fulfills the requirements of authenticity, integrity, and validity of electronic data. Therefore, more detailed regulations regarding authentication standards and examination procedures for electronic evidence are still needed to ensure legal certainty in civil court practices.

The development of financial technology has driven significant transformations in the non-cash payment system in Indonesia, one of which is through the use of the Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard (QRIS). The use of QRIS in civil transactions relates not only to the technical aspects of payments but also has legal implications in the civil realm, particularly regarding the application of the principle of consensualism and the status of electronic evidence in the Indonesian civil procedural law system. This study aims to analyze the application of the principle of consensualism in QRIS e-payment transactions as electronic evidence in civil procedural law. The research method used is normative legal research with a statutory and conceptual approach. The results indicate that QRIS transactions meet the principle of consensualism due to the agreement of the parties, and QRIS can be qualified as a valid electronic document as long as it meets the requirements for electronic system reliability and information integrity as stipulated in laws and regulations. However, the evidentiary power of QRIS is not perfect and requires the support of other evidence, with the final assessment resting with the judge based on the principle of independent evidence in civil procedural law.

The development of information technology has encouraged transformation in the administration and implementation of the judicial system in Indonesia, including within civil procedural law. The civil justice process, which has traditionally relied on manual procedures as regulated in the HIR and RBg, faces several limitations such as lengthy procedures, relatively high costs, and limited access for justice seekers. To address these challenges, the Supreme Court introduced the e-court system as part of judicial modernization through the digitalization of case administration and court proceedings. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of e-court in realizing procedural justice within civil procedural law and to examine the relationship between the classical procedural provisions contained in HIR/RBg and the newer regulations governing electronic court administration. The research employs a normative legal research method using statutory and conceptual approaches by examining legal provisions and the concept of procedural justice within the judicial system. The findings indicate that the implementation of e-court reflects a paradigm shift in civil procedural law from a formalistic system toward a more digital and administrative system that improves efficiency in case administration and accelerates dispute resolution. However, this transformation also raises questions regarding the harmonization of legal norms between the regulations governing electronic court systems and the traditional civil procedural rules. Nevertheless, the implementation of e-court has positive implications for the realization of the principles of simple, fast, and low-cost justice while also improving public access to more effective and efficient judicial services.

Evidence is a fundamental element in the legal proof process that serves as the basis for judges to examine, assess, and decide cases in court. Along with the advancement of information technology, the form of evidence has evolved, including digital evidence such as screenshots of conversations through digital communication applications like WhatsApp. This study aims to analyze the legal position and evidentiary value of digital conversation screenshots within the Indonesian legal system. The research method uses a normative juridical approach by examining laws and regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant court decisions. The results indicate that screenshots of conversations have legal recognition as electronic evidence; however, their evidentiary strength is limited and requires support from other forms of evidence. Judges apply the principle of Unus Testis Nullus Testis, meaning that screenshots cannot stand alone as sole evidence and must be supported by additional legal proof to fulfill the requirements of valid, complete, and convincing legal evidence.

The evolution of modern civil procedural law demands dispute resolution mechanisms that are responsive, efficient, and substantively just. In this context, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) particularly mediation and arbitration has transformed from a supplementary option into a central instrument within Indonesia’s dispute resolution architecture. This study aims to analyze the development of ADR from the perspective of modern civil procedural law, focusing on the normative status and practical efficiency of mediation and arbitration as pre-litigation mechanisms. The research employs a normative-juridical approach, analyzing primary legal sources (legislation, Supreme Court Regulations [PERMA], court decisions) and secondary sources (scholarly journals, books, policy documents). The findings indicate that mediation has been mandatorily integrated into civil procedure through PERMA No. 1 of 2016, functioning as a court-facilitated pre-litigation stage, while arbitration operates as a consensual out-of-court mechanism under Law No. 30 of 1999. Both mechanisms demonstrate clear efficiency in terms of time (resolution within weeks to months), cost (minimal to predictable), and the ability to preserve parties’ relationships through collaborative processes and procedural confidentiality. Nevertheless, implementation challenges remain, particularly concerning the availability of qualified mediators and public perception of ADR. The study concludes that ADR is no longer a marginal alternative but an integral pillar of modern civil justice, aligning with principles of procedural efficiency and substantive justice.

This research examines the implementation of the principle of openness in the examination of cases in civil court proceedings in Indonesia, focusing on two main issues: (1) how the principle of openness is regulated and applied in civil court practices, and (2) what key obstacles hinder the implementation of this openness. The purpose of the study is to provide an in-depth overview of the mechanisms for implementing the principle of openness in the civil judicial process and to identify inhibiting factors that need to be addressed promptly in order to make the judicial system more transparent and accountable. This study employs a normative juridical method with a statutory and conceptual approach. Data were obtained through literature review, including legislation, legal doctrines, and relevant court decisions, and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that the principle of openness is well accommodated normatively within Indonesia’s civil judicial system; however, its implementation still faces significant challenges, such as limited supporting facilities, inadequate dissemination among judicial officers, and the tension between protecting the privacy of parties and ensuring public access to information. To address these issues, improvements in technological infrastructure, human resource training, and internal policy revisions are essential steps to optimize the principle of openness in civil court proceedings.

This study aims to analyze the legal remedies for denial of default in the civil procedural law system in Indonesia. The main problem raised is how the denial mechanism can provide legal protection for defendants who are not present at the trial, and how the application of denial in judicial practice is related to the principle of fair and speedy trials. The background of this study is based on the phenomenon of many civil cases being decided by default due to the absence of the defendant, which then leads to the submission of denial as a means of protecting the defendant's rights. The research method used is normative juridical with a statutory approach and case studies. Data were obtained through a literature study of laws and regulations, court decisions, and relevant literature, and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study indicate that denial is an important legal right for defendants to defend themselves against unilaterally imposed decisions. However, in practice, the implementation of denial is often hampered by administrative factors, the defendant's ignorance of their rights, and different interpretations by law enforcement officers regarding the deadline for submitting denial. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen regulations and socialize the mechanism of verzet so that the principle of justice in the civil trial process can be realized optimally.    

Hubungan kerja seringkali menimbulkan perselisihan yang mempengaruhi hubungan Pemberi Kerja dan Pekerja. Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2004 mengatur penyelesaian sengketa melalui perundingan dan Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial. Meski merupakan lembaga yang dibentuk secara khusus, pengadilan ini tetap beroperasi di bawah Mahkamah Agung, dengan ketentuan yang diatur dalam hukum acara perdata. Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial diharapkan dapat menyelesaikan sengketa antara Pemberi Kerja dan Pekerja demi mencapai keadilan.

Pasal 84 dan Pasal 85 Undang-Undang No. 2 Tahun 2014 tentang perubahan atas Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris mengatur bahwa ketika Notaris dalam menjalankan tugas jabatannya terbukti melakukan pelanggaran, maka notaris dapat dikenai atau dijatuhi sanksi, berupa sanksi perdata, administrasi, dan kode etik jabatan Notaris, dan sanksi-sanksi tersebut telah diatur sedemikian rupa, baik sebelumnya dalam Peraturan Jabatan Notaris, dan sekarang dalam UUJN dan Kode Etik Jabatan Notaris, dan tidak mengatur adanya sanksi pidana terhadap Notaris. Dalam penerapannya berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 1014 K/Pid/2013 bahwa terdakwa Notaris terbukti melakukan tindak pidana pemalsuan Akta Otentik, sehingga dijatuhi pidana penjara selama 8 (delapan) bulan. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah : 1) Bagaimana pengaturan hukum terkait pemalsuan akta yang dilakukan oleh Notaris; 2) Bagaimana pertanggungjawaban hukum oleh Notaris dalam pemalsuan akta; 3) Bagimana akibat hukum berita acara rapat yang dibuat tidak berdasarkan fakta oleh Notaris terhadap akta yang dibuatnya. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian Yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan yang dilakukan berdasarkan bahan hukum utama dengan cara menelaah teori-teori, konsep-konsep, asas-asas hukum serta peraturan perundang-undangan yang berhubungan dengan penelitian. Hasil analisis disajikan secara Kualitatif. Data di lapangan diambil melalui wawancara dengan Notaris Senior di kota Semarang. Hasil Penelitian ini adalah peran Notaris dalam peralihan aset tersebut adalah Pengaturan hukum terkait tindak pidana pemalsuan diatur dalam Pasal 263 KUHP, 264 KUHP dan 266 KUHP. Indikator sehingga Notaris dapat dibebani pertanggungjawaban terhadap isi Akta Autentik yang dibuatnya adalah adanya kesengajaan maupun kelalaian notaris dalam pembuatan akta autentik. Lebih lanjut, bentuk pertanggungjawaban yang dapat dijatuhkan kepada Notaris terhadap isi Akta Autentik yang tidak sesuai dengan fakta, antara lain yaitu pertanggungjawaban Perdata, Pidana, dan Administrasi/Kode Etik. akta yang dibuat oleh Notaris tersebut batal demi hukum dikarenakan adanya unsur pemalsuan surat.