Introduction
The prevailing law in Indonesia accommodates citizens who feel their rights are violated by others, to sue the party who harmed them and ask for compensation. For this reason, default claims and tort claims are known in civil law. However, it is not uncommon for Plaintiff to file a claim not to seek compensation, but only to harass Defendant. This kind of claim is commonly known as vexatious litigation.
The terminology of vexatious litigation in the Indonesian civil judiciary is known as a bad faith claim. Then Black’s Law Dictionary defines vexatious litigation as, “a lawsuit instituted maliciously and without good grounds, meant to create trouble and expense for the party being sued”.1 In short, the claim was filed in bad faith. This article will briefly review the existence of vexatious litigation in the Indonesian civil judiciary.
Discussion
HIR and RBG, as guidelines for civil procedural law in Indonesia, do not regulate vexatious litigation in civil cases in Indonesia. However, in criminal cases, there are consequences regarding false reports as stipulated in Article 220 of the Criminal Code. There is however a leading case for this matter. Under the legal rule of Decision Number 1228/Pdt.G/2007/PN.Jkt.Sel the judges define vexatious litigation as a claim that goes against the subjective rights of others as well as against the principles of appropriateness, thoroughness, and prudence that a person must have in social intercourse. The subjective rights mentioned earlier mean a special authority granted by the law to a person to be used for his interests, such as individual rights (freedom, dignity, and reputation), property rights, and other absolute titles.2
After the above legal rule, there are two other cases that consider the vexatious litigation rule in their decision. Under the Supreme Court Decision Number 769/K/2015, the plaintiff claimed a national bank (defendant) because his credit card was issued without his approval and reported to the Debtor Information System (SID) as a non-performing debtor. This caused the plaintiff to be unable to apply for a bank loan for his job and suffer losses. The plaintiff claimed hefty compensation, a public apology in 55 national and international media, and a ban on the bank from issuing credit cards to its customers. The bank countered with evidence that the plaintiff’s credit card issuance had been confirmed and verified by the plaintiff himself. The Panel of Judges stated that the credit card issuance was not a tort and the defendant had tried to help the plaintiff by removing the plaintiff’s bill. Then the Panel of Judges stated that the plaintiff filed a claim in bad faith since the plaintiff used the defendant’s favor to file an unreasonable claim. The key points here are that the claim was made up by the plaintiff, the claim was based on the defendant’s previous favor, and the claim was unreasonable.
Furthermore, under the Decision Number 19/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Jmb, the defendant argued that the plaintiff filed his claim in bad faith (vexatious litigation) to obstruct the defendant’s rights. The panel of judges stated that regardless of the argument of vexatious litigation, the judge serves as a referee to decide which argument is more solid (plaintiff or defendant) through the evidentiary process. For this reason, the panel of judges rejected the defendant’s exception on vexatious litigation. In this legal case, the judges did not exempt the existence of vexatious litigation, but despite that, the judges will not decline the claim just because of the existence of vexatious litigation without regard to the evidence.
Closing
Based on the description above, the conclusion that can be drawn is that although not explicitly regulated in the prevailing laws and regulations, the vexatious litigation rule is recognized in the Indonesian civil judiciary.
Irwansyah Dhiaulhaq Mahendra
References:
- Decision Number 19/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Jmb.
- Supreme Court Decision Number 769/K/2015.
