Reconstruction of Civil Judicial Activism Limitations: A Juridical Analysis of Ultra Petita Decisions for Legal Certainty and the Principle of Party Autonomy
Abstract
This research is prompted by the fundamental tension between the pursuit of substantive justice through discretionary (ex aequo et bono) decision-making and the prohibition on beyond-the-petition (ultra petita) decisions that prejudice procedural legal certainty. These dynamics have become increasingly complex following the issuance of Supreme Court Circular Number 2 of 2024. This regulation instructs judges to supplement their legal reasoning ex-officio with CTS data, which, in principle, could expand the scope of judicial activism beyond formal jurisdictional boundaries. This research aims to analyse the conceptual dialectic between judicial independence and party autonomy, to construct the boundaries of judicial activism post-implementation of Supreme Court Circular Number 2 of 2024, and to evaluate the ratio decidendi and juridical implications of land dispute decisions regarding the protection of the Defendant’s procedural rights. The research method employed is prescriptive-normative legal research, drawing on statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The results indicate that judges’ freedom to decide cases is not absolute. This authority is constrained by the functional jurisdiction of the courts as regulated in Law Number 2 of 1986 and the imperative prohibition of Article 178 section (3) of the HIR. A paradigm comparison with Law Number 30 of 1999 reaffirms that the limitations of claims in the general judiciary must be rigidly maintained due to the compelling nature of civil procedural law (dwingend recht). The construction of judicial activism boundaries lies in the separation between strengthening the quality of legal reasoning and prohibiting unilateral additions to the material petition. Verification of the case of G. Yohana Lembang et al. proves that activism exceeding the claims results in land legal uncertainty and legitimizes an extraordinary legal remedy of Judicial Review pursuant to Article 67 point c of Law Number 14 of 1985. In conclusion, the protection of party autonomy is the primary parameter for the validity of judicial activism. The Supreme Court is advised to formulate technical guidelines for the “supplementing legal reasoning” parameter to prevent procedural law malpractice that prejudices the private rights of legal subjects.
Downloads
References
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang-dasar
Adiningsih, Y., & Batubara, G. T. (2025). The Paradox of Implementing Restorative Justice at the Investigation Stage: A Systematic Weakening of Sentence Enhancement for Repeat Offenders. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(2), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.496
Andri, B. (2024). Tinjauan Yuridis Ganti Rugi Akibat Perbuatan Melawan Hukum dalam Sengketa Atas Tanah: Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1473 K/Pdt/2019. Rechtsnormen: Jurnal Komunikasi dan Informasi Hukum, 3(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.56211/rechtsnormen.v3i1.606
Ardiansyah, A., Akbar, M. G. G., & Abas, M. (2025). Evidentiary Strength of Land Ownership Certificates: An Analysis of Judicial Considerations in Supreme Court Decision Number 3762 K/Pdt/2022. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(1), 471-487. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i1.463
Bella, H. T., Harianto, D., & Andriati, S. L. (2022). Tanggung Jawab Distributor Kepada Retailer dalam Pemasaran Produk Handphone yang Tidak Sesuai Pemesanan (Studi Putusan Nomor 20/Pdt.G/2019/PN ADL). Syntax Idea, 4(7), 1141-1159. https://doi.org/10.46799/syntax-idea.v4i7.1918
Chandra, I. F., & Lubis, S. (2024). Application of the Ex Aequo Et Bono Principle to the Reconsidered Arbitration Award (Case Study of the Decision of the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI) Number 43032/VI/ARB-BANI/2020). Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 4(5), 1599-1610. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v4i5.581
Circular of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2024 on the Enactment of the Formulation Results of the 2024 Supreme Court Chamber Plenary Meeting as Guidelines for the Performance of Duties for Courts. https://jdih.mahkamahagung.go.id/legal-product/sema-nomor-2-tahun-2024/detail
Colonial Regulations, Staatsblad Number 23 of 1847 on the Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie/the Civil Code. https://jdih.mahkamahagung.go.id/legal-product/kitab-undang-undang-hukum-perdata/detail
Colonial Regulations, Staatsblad Number 496 of 1926 on the Herzien Inlandsch Reglement. https://jdih.mahkamahagung.go.id/legal-product/herzien-inlandsch-reglement-hir/detail
Colonial Regulations, Staatsblad Number 227 of 1927 on Reglement tot Regeling van het Rechtswezen in de Gewesten Buiten Java en Madura. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/peraturan/detail/11e9da0a8acb021e8439313835303432.html
Dahliani, D., & Tuasikal, H. (2025). Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdata Melalui Non-Litigasi: Kajian Hukum dan Implementasinya di Indonesia. Journal of Dual Legal Systems, 2(1), 46-69. Retrieved from https://journal.staisar.ac.id/index.php/jdls/article/view/322
Decision of the District Court of Makale Number 103/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Mak on G. Yohana Lembang (Plaintiff) vs. Adolphone Limbong Allo Bungin & Dorce Tongli (Defendants). https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/ee1aa1e0894f4a1add1b3b5bc461f8a1.html
Decision of the High Court of Makassar Number 266/Pdt/2016/PT.Mks on G. Yohana Lembang (Appellant) vs. Adolphone Limbong Allo Bungin & Dorce Tongli (Appellees). https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/29c09358ed4e49ba2dbe1f6edca6d1ae.html
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2246 K/Pdt/2017 on Dorce Tongli (Petitioner) vs. G. Yohana Lembang (Respondent). https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/9b25e86c5b0e1c4736c6571282e5897d.html
Fathan, R., Rivanie, S. S., Karim, M. S., Iskandar, I., Sriyana, S., & Halim, H. (2025). The Integration of the LPSK into the Criminal Justice System: The Urgency of Witness and Victim Protection Amidst an Illusion of Criminal Procedure Law Reform. SIGn Journal of Social Science, 6(1), 69-87. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjss.v6i1.517
Firmansyah, R. A., Widjaja, M., Kusumawardani, C. E., Sugianto, F., & Indradewi, A. A. (2025). Justice Collaborator at a Legal Crossroads: An Analysis of the Tension between Substantive Justice and Legal Certainty. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(1), 368-384. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i1.479
Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 24 of 1997 on Land Registration (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1997 Number 59, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3696). https://peraturan.go.id/id/pp-no-24-tahun-1997
Hadylaya, M. H. (2024). Harmonizing Arbitration: Clarity, Consistency, and Consent in the Application of Ex Aequo Et Bono. Jambura Law Review, 6(1), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.33756/jlr.v6i1.19703
Hardyansah, R., & Asis, L. F. (2024). Penerapan Asas Ultra Petitum Partium di Pengadilan Agama Perspektif Hukum Islam. Taruna Law: Journal of Law and Syariah, 2(2), 197-205. https://doi.org/10.54298/tarunalaw.v2i02.209
Ihzafitri, E. I., Roihanah, R., Salsabila, R. A., & Mudhi’ah, Q. F. (2022). Implementasi Kewenangan Ex-Officio Hakim dalam Perkara Cerai Talak di Pengadilan Agama Kabupaten Kediri. Jurnal Antologi Hukum, 2(2), 222-235. https://doi.org/10.21154/antologihukum.v2i2.1329
Irwansyah. (2020). Penelitian Hukum: Pilihan Metode & Praktik Penulisan Artikel. Mirra Buana Media.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1985 Number 73, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3316). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/681
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 1986 on the General Courts (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1986 Number 20, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3327). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/686
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999 Number 138, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3872). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/431
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 2004 on Amendment to Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004 Number 9, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4359). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/5
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 2004 on Amendment to Law Number 2 of 1986 on the General Courts (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004 Number 34, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4379). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/8
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2009 Number 3, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4958). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/518
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 48 of 2009 on the Judicial Power (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2009 Number 157, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5076). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/585
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 49 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 2 of 1986 on the General Courts (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2009 Number 158, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5077). https://www.dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/586
Leonard, T., Pakpahan, E. F., & Alexander, K. (2022). Freedom of Contract in Mortgage Loan Agreement at PT. Bank CIMB Niaga, Tbk. in Medan. International Journal of Latin Notary, 2(2), 143-151. https://doi.org/10.61968/journal.v2i02.42
Librayanto, R., Riza, M., Ashri, M., & Abdullah, K. (2019). Penataan Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Memperkuat Independensi Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Amanna Gappa, 27(1), 43-66. Retrieved from https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/agjl/article/view/7312
Lubis, M. M., Purba, H., & Ikhsan, E. (2025). Legal Analysis of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (PPJB) Against Sellers Who Do Not Want to Sign the Sale and Purchase Deed (AJB) (Study of Decision Number: 34/Pdt G/2020/PN Cbi). International Journal of Law Analytics, 3(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.59890/ijla.v3i2.3
Nasution, M. I., & Syam, S. (2024). Competence of Religious Courts to Annul Marriages Based on Change of Religion: Mengapa Yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung Disimpangi? Istinbath: Jurnal Hukum, 20(2), 81-101. https://doi.org/10.32332/istinbath.v20i02.3157
Qamar, N., & Rezah, F. S. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Doktrinal dan Non-Doktrinal. CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn). https://books.google.co.id/books?id=TAQHEAAAQBAJ
Rahmawati, A. (2024). Pendaftaran Peralihan Hak Atas Tanah Warisan yang Belum Dibagi. Al Qodiri: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial dan Keagamaan, 22(2), 178-187. https://doi.org/10.53515/qodiri.2024.22.2.178-187
Roosdiono, A. W., & Taqwa, M. D. (2024). Choice of Paradigm in Arbitration: Arbitrator’s Autonomy or Parties’ Authority? Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 53(3), 293-303. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.53.3.2024.293-303
Safa’at, R. A., Ananda, G. A. P., & Rasji, R. (2024). Kedudukan dan Kewenangan Mahkamah Agung dalam Menyelenggarakan Kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia. Jurnal Kewarganegaraan, 8(1), 303-309. Retrieved from https://journal.upy.ac.id/index.php/pkn/article/view/6150
Sampara, S., & Husen, L. O. (2016). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Kretakupa Print.
Sihombing, D. R. (2023). Kebebasan Hakim Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial dalam Memutus Perkara Atas Tuntutan Subsaider Ex Aequo Et Bono. Jurnal Hukum Das Sollen, 9(2), 849-867. https://doi.org/10.32520/das-sollen.v9i2.2994
Siregar, R. A. S. (2021). Analisis Terhadap Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Islamic Circle, 2(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.56874/islamiccircle.v2i1.472
Umam, K., & Nasution, M. G. H. (2023). Pemaknaan dan Implementasi Prinsip Ex Aequo Et Bono dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah Melalui Basyarnas. Veritas et Justitia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 9(2), 456-484. https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.v9i2.7303
Wijanarko, S. (2025). Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Menjatuhkan Putusan Ultra Petita dalam Sengketa Pengadilan Pajak (Analisis Putusan Nomor Put-005497.99/2023/PP/M.IIIA Tanggal 7 November 2024). Jurnal Impresi Indonesia, 4(9), 3376-3385. https://doi.org/10.58344/jii.v4i9.6997
Wijaya, L. K., Rahma, N. N., & Ghifari, T. A. (2025). The Dialectic of Agrarian Justice: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Unlawful Acts in Land Disputes from the District Court to Judicial Review. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(2), 727-748. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.516
Copyright (c) 2025 Bambang Eko Nugroho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
