“The most significant change is could be seen on Article 1 (1) of Supreme Court Regulation 4/2019 by increasing the maximum amount of the claim to IDR 500,000,000 (five hundred million rupiahs) where it is previously set at IDR 200,000,000 (two hundred million rupiahs)”
On 20 August 2019, the Supreme Court issued Regulation No. 4 of 2019 Concerning the Amendment to Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2015 Concerning Small Claim Court Settlement Procedure. In the Supreme Court Regulation or Peraturan Mahkamah Agung (Perma) No.4/2019, there are several substantial amendments from its predecessor (Perma 2/2015).
A small claim court is a court settlement procedure that differs from the regular court settlement procedure where several criteria need to be fulfilled to be settled through a small claim court. The criteria are regulated for the first time in Perma 2/2015. For example, the amount of material claim proposed should not exceed IDR 200,000,000 (two hundred million rupiahs), and the claim made to small claim court should not be a case that needs to be settled in a special court or related to land dispute.
To enhance the court settlement through small claim court, The Supreme Court amended Perma 2/2015 by issuing Perma 4/2019. There are several amendments in this new regulation, be it in the form of substantial amendments or in the form of article/paragraph addition.
What’s New?
Maximum Amount of the Material Claim
The most significant change could be seen on Article 1 (1) of Supreme Court Regulation 4/2019 by increasing the maximum amount of the claim to IDR 500,000,000 (five hundred million rupiahs) where it is previously set at IDR 200,000,000 (two hundred million rupiahs) as regulated in Perma 2/2015.
The Domicile of the Involved Parties
Another breakthrough made by The Supreme Court through Perma 4/2019 is the possibility for the plaintiff to appoint a representative, incidental representative, or a representative that lived in the same jurisdiction as the defendant. This can be done if the plaintiff wants to file a claim but is hindered by the difference of jurisdiction between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Perma 2/2015 requires the plaintiff and defendant to live in the same jurisdiction. It means a case can’t be settled through small claim court if the plaintiff and the defendant lived in a different jurisdiction e.g. the plaintiff domiciled in South Jakarta, while the defendant domiciled in East Jakarta.
Attorney Qualifications
Another difference between Perma 4/2019 and Perma 2/2015 is regarding the qualification of attorney that could accompany the plaintiff or the defendant. In Perma 2/2015 the only one who could accompany the plaintiff and the defendant is a lawyer, but in Perma 4/2019 both parties could be accompanied by incidental representative or a representative from both the plaintiff or the defendant.
Verstek and Verzet
If Perma 2/2015 stated that the judge will decide upon a case in the event of the defendant did now show up on the second day of the trial, then Perma 4/2019 is being way more assertive than the previous regulation. In the event of the defendant did not show up to the trial, then on the second day after being summoned appropriately, the judge will decide the case without the presence of the defendant (verstek)
Collateral Confiscation
In the newest regulation, through article 17A, the judge can confiscate the defendant’s assets and/or plaintiff’s asset that is under the control of the defendant in the investigation process. It’s a brand new provision because in the previous regulation no provision grants the judge the authority to put confiscate in the a settlement process through a small claim court.
Aanmaning
The last change made in Perma 4/2019 is regarding the authority of the Head of Court to issue an aanmaning decision no more than seven days after receiving a request for execution. The Head of Court sets the date of aanmaning implementation no more than seven days after the aanmaning decision was issued. Aanmaning is a procedure where the party that needs to execute the decision being summoned to an incidental trial wherein such trial, the said party is requested to implement the decision made by the court voluntarily.
The Head of Court could deviate from the stipulated timeline in the event of the aanmaning implementation could not be conducted in 7 (seven) days due to certain geographical circumstances.
Other than that, there is no other amendment made related to the small claim court settlement procedure, which include:
a. Registration;
b. small claim court requirements check;
c. the appointment of the judge and substitute registrar;
d. preliminary examination;
e. determination of the trial day and the summoning of the parties;
f. trial examination and reconciliation;
g. examination of the proof; and
h. decision.
Author: Muhammad Satryo Wibowo / Gaffar & Co.
Gaffar & Co. is an Indonesian Boutique Law Firm that focused on commercial law areas includes dispute resolution.
For further queries and information, contact us:
+62- 21 5080 6536 | info@gaffarcolaw.com | www.gaffarcolaw.com
