Vincentius Verdian

Comparative Assessment of Civil Procedure in Indonesia and The Netherlands: The Source of The Principles

Introduction

Comparative assessment of civil procedure in indonesia and the netherlands: the source of the principles. Assesses civil procedure in Indonesia vs. Netherlands. Indonesia's outdated laws cause legal uncertainty and inefficient proceedings. Advocates a new Civil Code for timely, affordable justice.

Abstract

This paper assessed the different sources of principles in the civil procedure between Indonesia and the Netherlands. Indonesia still uses the Inlandsch Reglement (IR) and the Rechtsreglement voor de Buitengewesten (RBg) while the Netherlands has updated their Civil Code incorporating the principles from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Therefore, the outdated regulation used in Indonesia lacks procedural protections such as timely case resolution and affordable proceedings. This matter creates a legal uncertainty between the Indonesian Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which emphasizes Human Rights, and the old Code of Civil Procedure itself. Although the Indonesian Government already made some efforts to fix this problem, it remains insufficient. This paper suggests that to improve legal certainty in Indonesia, they are required to make a new Code of Civil Procedure with provisions that ensure efficient and affordable legal proceedings. 

Review

This paper presents a timely and critical comparative assessment of civil procedure principles in Indonesia and the Netherlands, focusing on their respective sources. The abstract effectively highlights a significant disparity, where Indonesia continues to rely on archaic regulations such as the Inlandsch Reglement (IR) and Rechtsreglement voor de Buitengewesten (RBg). In stark contrast, the Netherlands has modernized its Civil Code to incorporate contemporary human rights principles, notably those from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The central argument that Indonesia's outdated framework leads to a lack of fundamental procedural protections, resulting in legal uncertainty and a conflict with its constitutional and international human rights commitments (ICCPR), is clearly articulated and forms the core contribution of this work. The strength of this study lies in its direct identification of a pressing legal issue within Indonesia and its use of a historically relevant comparative partner. By benchmarking Indonesia's system against that of the Netherlands, the paper illuminates the tangible consequences of regulatory stagnation, particularly concerning timely and affordable legal proceedings. The explicit connection drawn between the outdated regulations and the broader implications for human rights, as enshrined in both the Indonesian Constitution and the ICCPR, underscores the profound societal impact of this procedural deficiency. The acknowledgment of insufficient past governmental efforts to rectify this situation further solidifies the argument for urgent and comprehensive reform. While the abstract convincingly sets out the problem and proposes a clear solution—the development of a new Code of Civil Procedure—a full paper would benefit from a more detailed exploration of the specific mechanisms and principles adopted by the Netherlands that could serve as concrete models for Indonesia. Furthermore, a deeper analysis of *why* Indonesia's previous reform attempts have proven insufficient would strengthen the argument for the suggested wholesale overhaul. Despite these potential areas for elaboration, the paper makes a compelling case for procedural reform in Indonesia, offering a valuable foundation for future legislative efforts aimed at enhancing legal certainty and ensuring efficient, human rights-compliant civil justice.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.