Judicial Legal Reasoning in the Ruling on PT Jiwasraya (Persero) Regarding Provest Saving Plan Policy Claims (A Study Of Decision Number 05/Pdt.G.S/2021/Pn.Jkt.Pst)

Fikrun Khair (Faculty of Law, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia)
Wetria Fauzi (Faculty of Law, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia)
Yussy Adelina Mannas (Faculty of Law, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia)
Darmaiza (Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Imam Bonjol Padang)
Bismil Tirta Jalisman (Faculty of Law, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia)

Journal of Law, Poliitic and Humanities
Vol. 6 No. 5 (2026): (JLPH) Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities

PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) defaulted on claims related to its Provest Saving Plan (JS Saving Plan), an investment-linked insurance product marketed via bancassurance that claimed returns which it ultimately failed to fulfil, resulting in significant losses for policyholders and the state. The default resulted in two judicial rulings obtained via distinct procedural avenues, yielding conflicting results: Decision Number 05/Pdt.G.S/2021/PN.Jkt.Pst via a small-claim action predicated on default (wanprestasi), and Decision Number 759/Pdt.G/2021/PN.Jkt.Pst via a standard civil action based on an unlawful act (perbuatan melawan hukum). This study analyses the legal obligations of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya to Provest Saving Plan policyholders in cases of default, as well as the court's rationale in both rulings. This research utilises normative legal analysis through statutory and case law methodologies. The findings indicate that PT Asuransi Jiwasraya's legal responsibility arises from a valid reciprocal insurance contract and is multifaceted, encompassing civil liability derived from contractual obligations and tortious liability as strict liability; individual criminal liability of directors who violated prudential principles and good corporate governance; and administrative liability enforced by the OJK, resulting in the revocation of its business licence and the dissolution of the company. Secondly, a divergence exists in the judges' legal reasoning stemming from varying interpretations of the term "may" (dapat) within the dispute-resolution clause of the General Policy Terms: in Decision Number 05/Pdt.G.S/2021/PN.Jkt.Pst, the clause was interpreted as facultative, resulting in the suit being granted, whereas in Decision Number 759/Pdt.G/2021/PN.Jkt.Pst, the identical clause was interpreted as a procedural obligation, leading to the suit being deemed premature and inadmissible. This research concludes that upholding policyholders' rights through decisions that safeguard individual consumers aligns more closely with the tenets of corrective and procedural justice, and that a uniform standard for interpreting dispute-resolution clauses is essential to ensure legal certainty and protect policyholders.