Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Nanda Narendra Putra
Seminar Entitled "Dissemination and Discussion of the Supreme Court Regulation on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims. Photo by: RES.
On August 2015, the Supreme Court issued Regulation No. 2 of 2015 on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims (PERMA 2015). This regulation laid out a path for claims under the value of IDR 200 million to be settled through the PERMA 2015 mechanism, which is aiming to both accelerate and simplify the small claims process.
In addition to the claim amount cap, several other criteria must also be satisfied by disputing parties before they can utilize the small claims court mechanism. These criteria include the stipulation that disputing parties must be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction and also that any claim made does not concern any dispute over land rights or encompass anything that needs to be heard under the jurisdiction of a special court (i.e. commercial court, industrial court, etc.).
It’s now been almost a year since the issuance of PERMA 2015, and a number of stakeholders recently reviewed the implementation of the regulation at an event titled, Dissemination and Discussion of the Supreme Court Regulation on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims.
The event, which was held in Jakarta on Tuesday, 21 June 2016, was organized by the Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia - PSHK), the Research and Advocacy Institution for Judicial Independency (Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi untuk Independensi Peradilan - LeIP), and the Juducial Reform Team established by the Supreme Court in cooperation with Hukumonline and sponsored by the Australia - Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ).
During the event, Bimo Prasetio, a partner with the BP Lawyers law firm, asserted that the implementation of small-claims-court policy would be heavily hindered by the provision, as it requires both the plaintiff and the defendant to be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction, as stipulated under Article 4 (3) of PERMA 2015.
Mr. Prasetio claimed that this domicile requirement was preventing parties from being able to utilize the small-claims-court mechanism. “I find this requirement to be very restrictive,” Mr. Prasetio emphasized.
Meanwhile, Abdul Basith from the Indonesian Consumers Organization (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia - YLKI) expressed his appreciation for the issuance of PERMA 2015, believing that it offers an alternative forum through which consumers can settle disputes. Nonetheless, Mr. Basith was at one with Mr. Prasetio on the domicile issue and pointed to the fact that the domicile requirement would greatly restrict options for consumers who were intending to utilize this particular dispute settlement mechanism.
Offering further insight, Mr. Basith set out his proposed solution to this problem to Hukumonline. His suggestion is that special treatment be granted to regions or cities which have a high level of business activity. Mr. Basith asserted that this special treatment should see court jurisdictions in such regions or cities being extended so that they cover entire provincial territories, instead of just single regions or cities.
“There should be special treatment for major cities so that consumers are not restricted as regards their ability to utilize the small claims court. By way of example, a plaintiff who is domiciled in West Jakarta should be able to file a lawsuit at the small claims court against a defendant who is domiciled in South Jakarta,” asserted Mr. Basith.
Commenting on this issue, Supreme Court Judge, Prof. Syamsul Ma’arif, acknowledged the fact that the domicile requirement may ultimately hinder the effective implementation of PERMA 2015. The Consumer Dispute Settlement Board (Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen - BPSK) shares these concerns and is currently discussing the issue with the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court itself is currently reviewing this particular problem,” Prof. Maarif asserted.
Temporary Solution
As a temporary solution, Prof. Maarif suggested that a lawyer’s domicile could be utilized if the disputing parties were not domiciled within the same court jurisdiction. This suggestion was first made by the Head of the Tangerang District Court, with the reservation that disputing parties would still be required to be present during court proceedings.
However, Mr. Prasetio asserted during the recent discussion event that the temporary solution suggested by Prof. Maarif did not completely deal with the matter at hand. This is because there are a number of issues which relate to the use of lawyer domiciles, specifically the fact that not all law firms have an official establishment deed and some are not even in possession of an affidavit stating their domicile.
“On what basis can a court clarify whether a lawyer’s domicile is correct or not? What if the lawyer in question has not even joined a law firm?” Mr. Prasetio asserted.
Furthermore, Article 4 (4) of PERMA 2015 stipulates that both plaintiff and defendant must attend all of the trial proceedings, with or without the presence of their lawyers. Thus, the need to hire lawyers in order to satisfy the domicile requirement contradicts the fundamental purpose of the PERMA 2015, namely that there is no longer a need to hire lawyers in order to achieve an affordable, simple, prompt and efficient litigation process.
In addition to the claim amount cap, several other criteria must also be satisfied by disputing parties before they can utilize the small claims court mechanism. These criteria include the stipulation that disputing parties must be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction and also that any claim made does not concern any dispute over land rights or encompass anything that needs to be heard under the jurisdiction of a special court (i.e. commercial court, industrial court, etc.).
It’s now been almost a year since the issuance of PERMA 2015, and a number of stakeholders recently reviewed the implementation of the regulation at an event titled, Dissemination and Discussion of the Supreme Court Regulation on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims.
The event, which was held in Jakarta on Tuesday, 21 June 2016, was organized by the Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia - PSHK), the Research and Advocacy Institution for Judicial Independency (Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi untuk Independensi Peradilan - LeIP), and the Juducial Reform Team established by the Supreme Court in cooperation with Hukumonline and sponsored by the Australia - Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ).
During the event, Bimo Prasetio, a partner with the BP Lawyers law firm, asserted that the implementation of small-claims-court policy would be heavily hindered by the provision, as it requires both the plaintiff and the defendant to be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction, as stipulated under Article 4 (3) of PERMA 2015.
Mr. Prasetio claimed that this domicile requirement was preventing parties from being able to utilize the small-claims-court mechanism. “I find this requirement to be very restrictive,” Mr. Prasetio emphasized.
Meanwhile, Abdul Basith from the Indonesian Consumers Organization (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia - YLKI) expressed his appreciation for the issuance of PERMA 2015, believing that it offers an alternative forum through which consumers can settle disputes. Nonetheless, Mr. Basith was at one with Mr. Prasetio on the domicile issue and pointed to the fact that the domicile requirement would greatly restrict options for consumers who were intending to utilize this particular dispute settlement mechanism.
Offering further insight, Mr. Basith set out his proposed solution to this problem to Hukumonline. His suggestion is that special treatment be granted to regions or cities which have a high level of business activity. Mr. Basith asserted that this special treatment should see court jurisdictions in such regions or cities being extended so that they cover entire provincial territories, instead of just single regions or cities.
“There should be special treatment for major cities so that consumers are not restricted as regards their ability to utilize the small claims court. By way of example, a plaintiff who is domiciled in West Jakarta should be able to file a lawsuit at the small claims court against a defendant who is domiciled in South Jakarta,” asserted Mr. Basith.
Commenting on this issue, Supreme Court Judge, Prof. Syamsul Ma’arif, acknowledged the fact that the domicile requirement may ultimately hinder the effective implementation of PERMA 2015. The Consumer Dispute Settlement Board (Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen - BPSK) shares these concerns and is currently discussing the issue with the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court itself is currently reviewing this particular problem,” Prof. Maarif asserted.
Temporary Solution
As a temporary solution, Prof. Maarif suggested that a lawyer’s domicile could be utilized if the disputing parties were not domiciled within the same court jurisdiction. This suggestion was first made by the Head of the Tangerang District Court, with the reservation that disputing parties would still be required to be present during court proceedings.
However, Mr. Prasetio asserted during the recent discussion event that the temporary solution suggested by Prof. Maarif did not completely deal with the matter at hand. This is because there are a number of issues which relate to the use of lawyer domiciles, specifically the fact that not all law firms have an official establishment deed and some are not even in possession of an affidavit stating their domicile.
“On what basis can a court clarify whether a lawyer’s domicile is correct or not? What if the lawyer in question has not even joined a law firm?” Mr. Prasetio asserted.
Furthermore, Article 4 (4) of PERMA 2015 stipulates that both plaintiff and defendant must attend all of the trial proceedings, with or without the presence of their lawyers. Thus, the need to hire lawyers in order to satisfy the domicile requirement contradicts the fundamental purpose of the PERMA 2015, namely that there is no longer a need to hire lawyers in order to achieve an affordable, simple, prompt and efficient litigation process.
(hs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Nanda Narendra Putra
Seminar Entitled "Dissemination and Discussion of the Supreme Court Regulation on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims. Photo by: RES.
On August 2015, the Supreme Court issued Regulation No. 2 of 2015 on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims (PERMA 2015). This regulation laid out a path for claims under the value of IDR 200 million to be settled through the PERMA 2015 mechanism, which is aiming to both accelerate and simplify the small claims process.
In addition to the claim amount cap, several other criteria must also be satisfied by disputing parties before they can utilize the small claims court mechanism. These criteria include the stipulation that disputing parties must be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction and also that any claim made does not concern any dispute over land rights or encompass anything that needs to be heard under the jurisdiction of a special court (i.e. commercial court, industrial court, etc.).
It’s now been almost a year since the issuance of PERMA 2015, and a number of stakeholders recently reviewed the implementation of the regulation at an event titled, Dissemination and Discussion of the Supreme Court Regulation on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims.
The event, which was held in Jakarta on Tuesday, 21 June 2016, was organized by the Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia - PSHK), the Research and Advocacy Institution for Judicial Independency (Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi untuk Independensi Peradilan - LeIP), and the Juducial Reform Team established by the Supreme Court in cooperation with Hukumonline and sponsored by the Australia - Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ).
During the event, Bimo Prasetio, a partner with the BP Lawyers law firm, asserted that the implementation of small-claims-court policy would be heavily hindered by the provision, as it requires both the plaintiff and the defendant to be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction, as stipulated under Article 4 (3) of PERMA 2015.
Mr. Prasetio claimed that this domicile requirement was preventing parties from being able to utilize the small-claims-court mechanism. “I find this requirement to be very restrictive,” Mr. Prasetio emphasized.
Meanwhile, Abdul Basith from the Indonesian Consumers Organization (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia - YLKI) expressed his appreciation for the issuance of PERMA 2015, believing that it offers an alternative forum through which consumers can settle disputes. Nonetheless, Mr. Basith was at one with Mr. Prasetio on the domicile issue and pointed to the fact that the domicile requirement would greatly restrict options for consumers who were intending to utilize this particular dispute settlement mechanism.
Offering further insight, Mr. Basith set out his proposed solution to this problem to Hukumonline. His suggestion is that special treatment be granted to regions or cities which have a high level of business activity. Mr. Basith asserted that this special treatment should see court jurisdictions in such regions or cities being extended so that they cover entire provincial territories, instead of just single regions or cities.
“There should be special treatment for major cities so that consumers are not restricted as regards their ability to utilize the small claims court. By way of example, a plaintiff who is domiciled in West Jakarta should be able to file a lawsuit at the small claims court against a defendant who is domiciled in South Jakarta,” asserted Mr. Basith.
Commenting on this issue, Supreme Court Judge, Prof. Syamsul Ma’arif, acknowledged the fact that the domicile requirement may ultimately hinder the effective implementation of PERMA 2015. The Consumer Dispute Settlement Board (Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen - BPSK) shares these concerns and is currently discussing the issue with the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court itself is currently reviewing this particular problem,” Prof. Maarif asserted.
Temporary Solution
As a temporary solution, Prof. Maarif suggested that a lawyer’s domicile could be utilized if the disputing parties were not domiciled within the same court jurisdiction. This suggestion was first made by the Head of the Tangerang District Court, with the reservation that disputing parties would still be required to be present during court proceedings.
However, Mr. Prasetio asserted during the recent discussion event that the temporary solution suggested by Prof. Maarif did not completely deal with the matter at hand. This is because there are a number of issues which relate to the use of lawyer domiciles, specifically the fact that not all law firms have an official establishment deed and some are not even in possession of an affidavit stating their domicile.
“On what basis can a court clarify whether a lawyer’s domicile is correct or not? What if the lawyer in question has not even joined a law firm?” Mr. Prasetio asserted.
Furthermore, Article 4 (4) of PERMA 2015 stipulates that both plaintiff and defendant must attend all of the trial proceedings, with or without the presence of their lawyers. Thus, the need to hire lawyers in order to satisfy the domicile requirement contradicts the fundamental purpose of the PERMA 2015, namely that there is no longer a need to hire lawyers in order to achieve an affordable, simple, prompt and efficient litigation process.
In addition to the claim amount cap, several other criteria must also be satisfied by disputing parties before they can utilize the small claims court mechanism. These criteria include the stipulation that disputing parties must be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction and also that any claim made does not concern any dispute over land rights or encompass anything that needs to be heard under the jurisdiction of a special court (i.e. commercial court, industrial court, etc.).
It’s now been almost a year since the issuance of PERMA 2015, and a number of stakeholders recently reviewed the implementation of the regulation at an event titled, Dissemination and Discussion of the Supreme Court Regulation on the Mechanism for the Settlement of Small Claims.
The event, which was held in Jakarta on Tuesday, 21 June 2016, was organized by the Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia - PSHK), the Research and Advocacy Institution for Judicial Independency (Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi untuk Independensi Peradilan - LeIP), and the Juducial Reform Team established by the Supreme Court in cooperation with Hukumonline and sponsored by the Australia - Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ).
During the event, Bimo Prasetio, a partner with the BP Lawyers law firm, asserted that the implementation of small-claims-court policy would be heavily hindered by the provision, as it requires both the plaintiff and the defendant to be domiciled within the same district-court jurisdiction, as stipulated under Article 4 (3) of PERMA 2015.
Mr. Prasetio claimed that this domicile requirement was preventing parties from being able to utilize the small-claims-court mechanism. “I find this requirement to be very restrictive,” Mr. Prasetio emphasized.
Meanwhile, Abdul Basith from the Indonesian Consumers Organization (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia - YLKI) expressed his appreciation for the issuance of PERMA 2015, believing that it offers an alternative forum through which consumers can settle disputes. Nonetheless, Mr. Basith was at one with Mr. Prasetio on the domicile issue and pointed to the fact that the domicile requirement would greatly restrict options for consumers who were intending to utilize this particular dispute settlement mechanism.
Offering further insight, Mr. Basith set out his proposed solution to this problem to Hukumonline. His suggestion is that special treatment be granted to regions or cities which have a high level of business activity. Mr. Basith asserted that this special treatment should see court jurisdictions in such regions or cities being extended so that they cover entire provincial territories, instead of just single regions or cities.
“There should be special treatment for major cities so that consumers are not restricted as regards their ability to utilize the small claims court. By way of example, a plaintiff who is domiciled in West Jakarta should be able to file a lawsuit at the small claims court against a defendant who is domiciled in South Jakarta,” asserted Mr. Basith.
Commenting on this issue, Supreme Court Judge, Prof. Syamsul Ma’arif, acknowledged the fact that the domicile requirement may ultimately hinder the effective implementation of PERMA 2015. The Consumer Dispute Settlement Board (Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen - BPSK) shares these concerns and is currently discussing the issue with the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court itself is currently reviewing this particular problem,” Prof. Maarif asserted.
Temporary Solution
As a temporary solution, Prof. Maarif suggested that a lawyer’s domicile could be utilized if the disputing parties were not domiciled within the same court jurisdiction. This suggestion was first made by the Head of the Tangerang District Court, with the reservation that disputing parties would still be required to be present during court proceedings.
However, Mr. Prasetio asserted during the recent discussion event that the temporary solution suggested by Prof. Maarif did not completely deal with the matter at hand. This is because there are a number of issues which relate to the use of lawyer domiciles, specifically the fact that not all law firms have an official establishment deed and some are not even in possession of an affidavit stating their domicile.
“On what basis can a court clarify whether a lawyer’s domicile is correct or not? What if the lawyer in question has not even joined a law firm?” Mr. Prasetio asserted.
Furthermore, Article 4 (4) of PERMA 2015 stipulates that both plaintiff and defendant must attend all of the trial proceedings, with or without the presence of their lawyers. Thus, the need to hire lawyers in order to satisfy the domicile requirement contradicts the fundamental purpose of the PERMA 2015, namely that there is no longer a need to hire lawyers in order to achieve an affordable, simple, prompt and efficient litigation process.
(hs/sp)