<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the principle of proof and the position of evidentiary instruments in the examination of Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) cases, as well as to examine the judges’ considerations in assessing the validity and evidentiary strength of photocopied documents as evidence in Decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2023/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory and case law approaches through the examination of legislation, legal doctrines, and relevant court decisions. The results indicate that evidentiary proceedings in PKPU cases are based on the principle of simple proof, requiring the applicant to demonstrate, in a concise manner, the existence of a due and payable debt and the presence of more than one creditor; however, the evidentiary process must still comply with civil procedural law requirements regarding the validity of evidence, meaning that documentary evidence should possess valid evidentiary force, particularly when accompanied by original documents. In the analyzed decision, the panel of judges held that all evidence submitted by the applicant consisted solely of photocopied documents without the presentation of the originals, thereby lacking sufficient evidentiary strength to legally establish the existence of debt, resulting in the rejection of the PKPU petition. The study concludes that although the principle of simple proof applies, the formal validity of evidence remains a decisive factor in PKPU proceedings, thus requiring greater diligence from litigants in preparing evidence and the strengthening of regulations concerning the recognition of copied or electronic documents to ensure legal certainty in commercial court practice.]]>
