<![CDATA[The ne bis in idem principle in Indonesian civil procedural law derives from Article 1917 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata) and helps ensure legal certainty by preventing the relitigation of cases that have been substantially decided and have obtained final and binding legal force. This study employs normative legal research, using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches to critically examine how this normatively ideal principle inadvertently leaves procedural loopholes in judicial practice. These loopholes are susceptible to abuse by parties dissatisfied with final and binding decisions. By analyzing Supreme Court jurisprudence, prior court judgments, and land dispute data, this research identifies three primary sources of these loopholes: the relaxation of subject identity requirements, the utilization of resistance claims (gugatan perlawanan) as a substitutive legal remedy that de facto annuls final decisions, and the inconsistent interpretation of case identity across different judicial levels. This study argues that the fundamental issue lies not within the ne bis in idem principle itself, but rather in the loose operational definition of case identity elements and the absence of an integrated, inter-court case information system. As a contribution, this research proposes four reform measures: updating the Supreme Court's technical guidelines, restricting the function of resistance claims, digitizing the database of court decisions, and synchronizing cross-institutional land data.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
