Execution in Indonesia generally defined as the act of carrying out a final and binding verdict and is willingly adhered to by the parties involved. During the execution phase, the losing party becomes the one subject to enforcement. In practice, enforcement often faces challenges due to objections to execution (verzet), which may be filed by the executed party (partij verzet) or the third party (derden verzet) as stipulated in Article 195 paragraph (6) jo. Article 207 of the HIR and Article 206 paragraph (6) jo. Article 226 of the RBg.
Types of Objections to Execution
- The Executed Party Objection (Partij Verzet)
Under the Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) Number 7 of 2012, a party’s objection, referred to as partij verzet under Article 207 of the HIR, can only be raised on specific grounds. These grounds may include situations where the executed party has fulfilled its obligations as outlined in the judgment or where procedural errors occurred during the seizure process, such as an overly broad scope of the seized item (see Article 197 of the HIR). Generally, filing an objection does not automatically stop the execution of the judgment. If an objection is clearly well-founded and supported by valid legal basis, the execution may be temporarily suspended while the court assesses the validity of the objection (see Article 207, paragraph (3) of the HIR and Article 227 of the RBg).
Further, objections raised by parties whose movable or immovable property is subject to seizure are governed by Article 207 of the HIR and Article 225 of the RBg. In essence, while these objections do not halt the execution process, a strong basis for the objection can lead to a suspension of execution until the District Court issues a judgment. Parties can also file an appeal against the objection.
2. The Third-Party Objection (Derden Verzet)
The third-party objection, known as derden verzet, constitutes an extraordinary legal remedy available to individuals who were not parties to the original proceedings but whose rights or interests are adversely affected by the final verdict. A requirement for initiating a third-party objection (derden verzet) is that the third-party shall have rights to the seized property rather than just an interest in it. Through this objection, the third-party asserts their rights and can stop or pending the execution process. The relevant provisions for a third-party objection are including:
- Article 195 paragraph (6) of the HIR, which addresses objections from individuals claiming that the seized property is theirs.
- Article 206 paragraph (6) of the RBg, which covers objections from third-parties who can prove recognized ownership of the confiscated objects.
- Article 378 of the Rv, which gives third parties the right to raise objections if they have been adversely affected by a decision made without their presence in court.
In summary, we can infer that third-party objection (derden verzet) involves: 1) Actions taken by third-parties who are not involved in the case; 2) Filing an objection against a ruling that affects their rights; 3) Raising objections concerning objects that are owned or acknowledged as belonging to a third party, which have been subjected to confiscation.
Filing a derden verzet must be done while the object is still under seizure and has not yet been executed. If the object has already been executed, the third party will need to initiate a separate lawsuit to defend their rights, as outlined in Supreme Court Decisions Number 393K/Sip/1975 dated January 24, 1980, and Number 954K/Sip/1973 dated February 19, 1976.
Please note that it is crucial to file an execution challenge while the execution process is ongoing. Filing a challenge after the execution has ended will typically lead to its rejection, as highlighted in Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 1281 K/Sip/1979. If a challenge must be pursued after the execution process has concluded, a new lawsuit will need to be filed.
In conclusion, here are requirements for a valid objection:
- Ensure that the basis for the objection has a strong legal basis – having fulfilled obligations in accordance with the court order, procedural errors in the seizure, or violation of legal ownership rights over the seized object.
- Provide complete evidence of ownership or supporting documents
- File the objection before the District Court where the execution conducted.
Author: Agdelia Meiva Azarine
Contributors: R. Bayu Perdana, Nurdinah Hijrah
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.
Partner