Background

By the end of 2017, the Supreme Court of Indonesia issued the Supreme Court Regulation No. 9 of 2017 on Format And Writing Guideline of Supreme Court’s Decision/Stipulation (“Supreme Court Regulation 9/2017”) which came into force on 29 December 2017. Supreme Court Regulation 9/2017 annulled the Supreme Court Decree No. 155/KMA/SK/XII/2012 on the Application of Indonesian Supreme Court’s Decision Template.

Scope of Supreme Court Regulation 9/2017

Format of decision/stipulation which is regulated under Supreme Court Regulation 9/2017 is the Supreme Court’s standardized form of decision/stipulation in criminal, civil, military, religious, and state administrative matter for:

1. Cassation decision;
2. Judicial review decision;
3. Review decision of laws and regulation below the law;
4. Dispute of authority to adjudicate decision;
5. Stipulation; and
6. Other decisions based on authority given by laws.

Format Difference

Reading the attachments of Supreme Court Regulation 9/2017, it can be known that there are several changes in the formats of Supreme Court’s decision/stipulation. Thus, this should accelerate the completion of case in the Supreme Court that is known as time consuming all over this time.

Some basic changes, for example in cassation decision of general civil case, a cassation decision will no longer elaborate the civil claim by claimant, and defendant’s reply or counter claim. The cassation decision will only elaborate the request (petitum) by claimant in the civil claim, principle of exception by defendant, and request of counter claim by defendant (if any).

Other than that, the cassation decision will no longer elaborate the detail of the reasons as contained in memory of cassation, but it will only elaborate the request as set out in the memory of cassation. Legal consideration by the judges in cassation process will be elaborated in accordance with the order of the reasons of cassation as contained in the memory of cassation.

Meanwhile, for the cassation decision of general criminal case, the history of detention will not be elaborated unless there is the existence of suspension or transfer of detention. Further, the indictment by public prosecutor is no longer elaborated, but merely the form of indictment and the articles that is charged by public prosecutor. The detail of reasons contained in memory of cassation will not be mentioned, but the decision will only state that the memory of cassastion is contained in the bundle of case.

Other than accelerating the completion of case process, the above mentioned changes are expected to give positive impact for legal development in Indonesia. All this time there are many critics that the decision in the cassation and judicial review stage contains more repetition rather than its legal consideration. Therefore, the judges are expected to give comprehensive legal consideration when adjudicating the case.

Muhammad Fajar Utama