The Problem Is Not Completely Resolved

Nevertheless, Constitutional Court Decision Number 83/PUU-XXII/2024 has not fully resolved the issue of legal certainty. The Court has indeed closed the door to unilateral cancellations, but has not formulated in detail the standard of error that should be used to assess whether an error is serious enough to cancel the coverage. The decision also has not provided a clear measure of the burden of proof and proportionality of sanctions.

As a result, the problem shifts from one point to another. Previously, the problem lay in the insurer's dominance in canceling the coverage. Now, the issue shifts to how judges will later assess the boundary between negligence, errors that are still reasonable, and dishonesty that deserves to result in cancellation. If these parameters are not further formulated, the progressive decision still leaves room for uncertainty in practice.

Another issue lies in the procedural aspect. The Court has indeed affirmed that if an agreement or mediation is not reached, the cancellation must be assessed through a court decision. However, the decision has not explained operationally the most appropriate form of lawsuit, the stages of evidence that must be taken, and what the position of the claim is when the insurer chooses to be passive and does not immediately file legal action. This is where legal certainty still feels not entirely solid.

Certainty Is Not Enough with the Ruling

In legal theory, certainty does not only mean the existence of a decision, but also the existence of clear, consistent, and predictable rules of the game. Therefore, the reform of insurance law should not stop at the constitutional correction of Article 251 of the Commercial Code. What is needed after this decision is the formulation of more detailed derivative norms so that the parties do not continue to fight in the area of interpretation.

We need a clearer regulation regarding at least three things. First, the standard of error, namely when incomplete information can be considered material enough to cancel the coverage. Second, the burden of proof, namely who must prove the existence of elements of dishonesty or concealment of facts. Third, the proportionality of legal consequences, because not all errors deserve to be subject to total cancellation sanctions.

Time for a Clearer Reform

Therefore, further reform is a real necessity. Revision of the Commercial Code in the field of insurance is important so that it no longer depends on colonial formulations that have proven to cause problems in modern practice. In addition, judicial guidelines are also needed so that judges have a more uniform direction of interpretation in assessing the principle of good faith, the position of the insured, and the limits of cancellation of coverage.

In the end, Constitutional Court Decision Number 83/PUU-XXII/2024 is indeed worthy of being called a progressive step in Indonesian insurance law. However, that progressiveness is not identical to certainty. This decision succeeded in stopping unilateral cancellation of coverage, but has not fully resolved the more fundamental questions: when is cancellation truly valid, who must prove it, and to what extent can the legal consequences be justified.

If these questions have not been answered firmly, then insurance cancellation disputes will continue to move between two equally dangerous poles: injustice for the insured and uncertainty for the insurer. Therefore, what is needed now is not just celebrating the Constitutional Court Decision, but ensuring that after the decision is born, Indonesian insurance law truly becomes fairer and more certain.