In a lawsuit, it is often found that a Plaintiff submits a request that allows the court to immediately give an executable judgment. This article will briefly describe it. In principle, the implementation of a decision or execution can only be carried out after a case has permanent legal force (In kracht van gewijsde). However, the Indonesian procedural law provides exceptions to this principle, known as the Immediately Executable Judgment (Uitvoerbaar bij Voorraad), which is a court decision that can be carried out first, even though there was a legal effort of appeal to the high court, appeal to the supreme court or intervention by the Defendant or by a third party who is harmed.
The Verdict of Immediately Executable Judgment (Uitvoerbaar bij Voorraad) is a form of implementation of the principle of “simple, fast and low-cost justice” which is one of the important principles in procedural law as regulated in Article 4 paragraph of Law Number 14 of 1970 concerning Basic Provisions on Judicial Power. The meaning of the word “simple” is a program that is clear, easy to understand, and not convoluted. The meaning of the word “fast” refers to proceedings of a trial because trials usually take a long period of time or the number of formalities in the proceedings often becomes an obstacle to the operation of the judiciary. In this matter, it refers not only to court proceedings in the examination before the trial but also the completion of the examination report at the trial until the signing of the decision by the judge and its implementation. “Low cost” is intended so that the costs incurred to seek justice through the courts are affordable by most people because the high costs of cases in the high court level will often make parties of a case hesitant in fighting for their rights through courts.
Immediately Executable Judgment is regulated under Article 180 paragraph 1 HIR (Article 191 paragraph 1 RBg), Articles 54 and 55 Rv, as well as various Circular Letters and Instructions for the Supreme Court, including the Supreme Court Instruction Letter Number 348/K/5216/M Year 1958, Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 13 of 1964, Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 05 of 1965, Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 03 of 1971, Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 06 of 1975, Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 03 of 1978, Court Circular Supreme Number 3 of 2000 and Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2001.
Article 180 Paragraph 1 HIR (Article 191 Paragraph 1 RBg) regulates the conditions that must first be fulfilled by judges before passing a verdict. The article states: “The Head of the District Court may order that the decision can be carried out first even if there is intervention and appeal, if there is a valid letter, a written letter acceptable as evidence under applicable regulations or if there is a prior sentence with a decision that has gained a definite power, likewise if the demands are granted first, otherwise in a dispute about their rights.”
Based on the Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 3 of 2000, Immediately Executable Judgment can be issued if:
“1). The claim is based on an authentic/handwritten evidence which in truth is not denied by the Opponent;
2) Claims for debts with an amount that is certain not contested;
3). Laws regarding leases of land, houses, warehouses, etc., where the lease relationship has expired or the tenant is neglecting his/her obligations as a good tenant;
4). The subject of the lawsuit regarding the claim for assets and the verdict has been inkracht van gewijsde;
5) The granting of a legal suit with strict and clear legal considerations and fulfills article 332 Rv; and
6) Principal dispute concerning bezitsrecht;”
The Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 3 of 2000 has also established procedures and lawsuits that can be decided by the Decision of Immediately Executable Judgment (Uitvoerbaar bij Voorraad). Furthermore, the Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 4 of 2001 has been determined so that in each implementation of a decision, it is immediately required that there is a guarantee which has the same value as the object of execution. Point 6 and 7 of the Supreme Court Circular Letter No.3 2000 mentioned several things that need to be considered in relation to the implementation of an Immediately Executable Judgment, namely:
- “If the Plaintiff submits an application to the Head of the District Court and the Head of the Religious Court so that the Immediately Executable Judgment and Provisional Decisions are carried out, then the request along with the case file are sent to the High Court and the Religious High Court accompanied by the opinions of the Head of the District Court and the Head of the Religious Court concerned.
- The existence of guarantee that has the same value as the value of the goods/object of execution, so that it will not cause any loss to other parties if it turns out that a verdict will be made in the future which cancels the decision of the First Level Court. “
On page 2 of the Supreme Court Circular Letter No.4 of 2001, it is stated clearly and unequivocally that:
“Every time an immediately executable judgment is carried out (uitvoerbaar bij vorraad), the judgment must be accompanied by a stipulation (penetapan) as stipulated in point 7 SEMA No. 3 of 2000 which states:
“There is a guarantee that has the same value as the goods/object of execution so it won’t cause harm to other parties if it turns out that in the future a decision is made that invalidates the decision of the First Court.”
“Without this guarantee, there can be no immediately executable judgment”
Therefore, if the plaintiff does not provide a guarantee, the Panel of Judges should reject the petition for the Immediately Executable Judgment filed by the plaintiff. In practice, the issuance of the Immediately Executable Judgment is sufficient to be material for discourse in the practice of civil procedural law. Therefore when Prof. Bagir Manan was still the Head of the Supreme Court, he stated that:
“For the time being I do not justify judges in making Immediately Executable Judgments because it has more disadvantages than benefits,” said Bagir Manan after inaugurating five High Court Heads at the Supreme Court Building, Jakarta, Tuesday (27/3). “
The statement of Prof. Bagir Manan can be seen on page 8 of Harian Jurnal Nasional on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 and Harian Republika on 28 March 2007.
Hope it’s useful,
FREDRIK J. PINAKUNARY LAW OFFICES