The existence of judgeʼs authority norm in preliminary review as an embodiment of the principle of immediate procedures in civil procedure law

Abstract

A significant issue in the Indonesian legal system is the accessibility to justice in civil proceedings. This problem primarily arises from the rigid and time-consuming formal requirements, which hinder many individuals from effectively resolving their cases. Failure to meet these formal prerequisites often leads to case dismissals, ultimately impeding the application of the principle of a fast court process. This study aims to explore the extent of judgeʼs authority in assessing these formal requirements during the preliminary review in Indonesia. It adopts a normative juridical research approach, focusing on legislative and conceptual aspects. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources are analysed using various interpretation techniques, including grammatical and systematic interpretations. The findings reveal two contrasting viewpoints: the principle of a passive judge, which views judges as mere court observers without active involvement, and the emerging perspective emphasizing the role of an active judge. The concept of an active judge allows judges to advise plaintiffs on improving their claims if they fail to meet formal requirements, preventing the dismissal of their cases. In administrative and constitutional court proceedings, some mechanisms exist for reviewing and completing claims during the preliminary phase. However, it is essential to note that judges in civil proceedings lack a specific legal basis for providing guidance and recommendations to plaintiffs, and such actions are considered optional rather than obligatory. This lack of concrete implementation of the principles of expediency and access to justice in civil proceedings results in a backlog of cases and numerous cases being dismissed. The results of the study can be used in further regulatory adjustments regarding judgeʼs authority norm for ensuring preliminary review conduct