<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the position and evidentiary strength of the suppletoir oath in cases of unlawful acts (tort), particularly in the Decision of the Jombang District Court Number 70/Pdt.G/2024/PN Jbg. The suppletoir oath is a supplementary means of evidence ordered by the judge ex officio when the parties’ evidence is incomplete but there is preliminary proof (begin van bewijs). The results indicate that a suppletoir oath has binding evidentiary force once it is lawfully administered; however, it remains a supplementary means of proof and cannot replace primary evidence such as documents and witness testimony. In tort cases, which require the cumulative fulfillment of the elements under Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code, its application must be exercised carefully and proportionally. In Decision Number 70/Pdt.G/2024/PN Jbg, the use of the suppletoir oath is considered problematic because documentary evidence, signature authentication results, and witness testimony had already established strong and comprehensive proof. This situation potentially shifts the function of the oath from supplementary evidence to principal supporting evidence, thereby creating legal uncertainty regarding the standard of sufficiency of proof in civil cases.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
