The Background of the Small Court

Oct 13, 2025 by wbrum.org 77 views

Introduction

In an effort to speed up the litigation process that is often long and led to a buildup of cases in court, the Indonesian Supreme Court took innovative steps to maximize the application of simple, fast and low cost. For this reason, a small court was introduced through the Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 2 of 2015, which was then updated with Perma No. 4 of 2019. The dispute resolution process is designed to handle civil cases relating to default and acts against the law with a maximum claim value of Rp 500 million. This judicial process is targeted to be completed within 25 working days from the first trial day.

The small court has been implemented in various cases, including the case of default on the cooperation agreement for profit sharing, as stated in the decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau. This article will examine three important aspects: Indonesia's positive legal regulations related to the small court, the suitability of the Decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau with the Legal Procedure of a small court (Perma No. 2 of 2015 with Perma No. 4 of 2019), and the implementation of the decision.

The Background of the Small Court

The small court was introduced as a solution to overcome the problem of the buildup of cases in court. With a claim limit that does not exceed Rp. 500 million and a shorter completion period, it is expected to provide better access to justice for the community. In addition, the lower cost in this small court aims to reduce the economic burden that is often faced by the parties involved in the litigation.

The small court is a new approach to dispute resolution in Indonesia, which is designed to provide a faster and more cost-effective way to resolve civil cases. The court process is simplified, and the hearing is conducted within a shorter period, typically within 25 working days. This approach is expected to reduce the backlog of cases in the court and provide better access to justice for the community.

Conformity of Decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau

Based on the analysis of decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau, it was found that the court process had followed the procedures stipulated in Perma No. 2 of 2015 and Perma No. 4 of 2019. The court has carried out a hearing within the specified time, and the resulting decision shows a commitment to apply the principle of fast and simple justice. This is an achievement in the modernization of the Indonesian justice system.

The decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau is a good example of the application of the small court procedure. The court has followed the procedures stipulated in Perma No. 2 of 2015 and Perma No. 4 of 2019, and the decision has been issued within the specified time. This shows that the small court procedure can be effective in resolving civil cases in a faster and more cost-effective way.

Implementation of Decisions and Challenges

However, even though the verdict is in accordance with existing procedures, new challenges appear at the implementation stage. It is noted that the implementation of the decision voluntarily by the losing party has not been recorded in the register of the small court case. This shows that even though the verdict has been issued, a guarantee of legal certainty for the winning party has not been fully guaranteed. The court needs to prepare a mechanism to ensure that the verdict can be implemented effectively, so that the justice given does not merely end in the decision without realization in the field.

The implementation of the decision is a critical stage in the small court procedure. The court needs to ensure that the decision is implemented effectively, and the winning party receives the justice they deserve. However, the lack of recording of the implementation of the decision in the register of the small court case raises concerns about the guarantee of legal certainty for the winning party.

Conclusion

Overall, a small court plays an important role in accelerating the settlement of the case of default, as happened in Decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau. Although the decision is in accordance with small court procedures, the need for further efforts to ensure the implementation of the decision can provide legal certainty for the parties involved. The improvement steps in the implementation of the decision must be taken so that the principles of justice are simple, fast, and low costs can be realized in full in the Indonesian justice system.

In conclusion, the small court procedure has been effective in resolving civil cases in a faster and more cost-effective way. However, the implementation of the decision is a critical stage that requires further efforts to ensure the guarantee of legal certainty for the winning party. The court needs to prepare a mechanism to ensure that the verdict can be implemented effectively, so that the justice given does not merely end in the decision without realization in the field.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau, the following recommendations can be made:

Improvement of the implementation of the decision: The court needs to prepare a mechanism to ensure that the verdict can be implemented effectively, so that the justice given does not merely end in the decision without realization in the field.
Guarantee of legal certainty: The court needs to ensure that the winning party receives the justice they deserve, and the losing party implements the decision voluntarily.
Simplification of the court process: The court process needs to be simplified, and the hearing needs to be conducted within a shorter period, typically within 25 working days.
Reduction of the economic burden: The lower cost in this small court aims to reduce the economic burden that is often faced by the parties involved in the litigation.

By implementing these recommendations, the small court procedure can be further improved, and the principles of justice can be realized in full in the Indonesian justice system.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

Limited scope: The study only analyzed one case, Decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau, and did not examine other cases.
Limited data: The study only used the decision and the court records as data, and did not collect other data, such as the opinions of the parties involved.
Limited time frame: The study only examined the case from the time of the decision until the implementation of the decision, and did not examine the case over a longer period.

Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the application of the small court procedure in Indonesia and highlights the need for further efforts to ensure the implementation of the decision.

Future Research Directions

Future research can build on this study by:

Examining other cases: Future research can examine other cases that have been resolved through the small court procedure to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the application of the procedure.
Collecting more data: Future research can collect more data, such as the opinions of the parties involved, to gain a more nuanced understanding of the small court procedure.
Examining the long-term effects: Future research can examine the long-term effects of the small court procedure on the parties involved and the justice system as a whole.

By building on this study, future research can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the small court procedure and its effects on the justice system in Indonesia.

Q: What is the purpose of the small court procedure in Indonesia?

A: The small court procedure is designed to provide a faster and more cost-effective way to resolve civil cases in Indonesia. The procedure aims to simplify the court process, reduce the economic burden on the parties involved, and provide better access to justice for the community.

Q: What is the maximum claim value for the small court procedure in Indonesia?

A: The maximum claim value for the small court procedure in Indonesia is Rp 500 million.

Q: How long does the small court procedure take to complete?

A: The small court procedure is targeted to be completed within 25 working days from the first trial day.

Q: What is the significance of Decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau in the context of the small court procedure?

A: Decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau is a good example of the application of the small court procedure in Indonesia. The decision was issued within the specified time, and the court process followed the procedures stipulated in Perma No. 2 of 2015 and Perma No. 4 of 2019.

Q: What are the challenges in implementing the decision in the small court procedure?

A: One of the challenges in implementing the decision in the small court procedure is the lack of recording of the implementation of the decision in the register of the small court case. This raises concerns about the guarantee of legal certainty for the winning party.

Q: What are the recommendations for improving the implementation of the decision in the small court procedure?

A: The recommendations for improving the implementation of the decision in the small court procedure include:

Improvement of the implementation of the decision: The court needs to prepare a mechanism to ensure that the verdict can be implemented effectively, so that the justice given does not merely end in the decision without realization in the field.
Guarantee of legal certainty: The court needs to ensure that the winning party receives the justice they deserve, and the losing party implements the decision voluntarily.
Simplification of the court process: The court process needs to be simplified, and the hearing needs to be conducted within a shorter period, typically within 25 working days.
Reduction of the economic burden: The lower cost in this small court aims to reduce the economic burden that is often faced by the parties involved in the litigation.

Q: What are the limitations of the study?

A: The study has several limitations, including:

Limited scope: The study only analyzed one case, Decision No. 1/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Bau, and did not examine other cases.
Limited data: The study only used the decision and the court records as data, and did not collect other data, such as the opinions of the parties involved.
Limited time frame: The study only examined the case from the time of the decision until the implementation of the decision, and did not examine the case over a longer period.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: Future research can build on this study by:

Examining other cases: Future research can examine other cases that have been resolved through the small court procedure to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the application of the procedure.
Collecting more data: Future research can collect more data, such as the opinions of the parties involved, to gain a more nuanced understanding of the small court procedure.
Examining the long-term effects: Future research can examine the long-term effects of the small court procedure on the parties involved and the justice system as a whole.

By building on this study, future research can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the small court procedure and its effects on the justice system in Indonesia.