Legal Literacy - In a civil case, the Defendant or Co-Defendant will dispute/refute the Plaintiff's claim. One of the arguments that can be put forward in the answer is an exception error in objecto or an error in the object of the lawsuit. An error in determining the object of the dispute will result in the lawsuit being declared inadmissible.

Exception Error in Objecto In the Answer

In accordance with the order of civil case proceedings that apply in the District Court, if mediation fails to reach a peace agreement, the trial will be continued on the examination of the subject matter with one of the agendas being the exchange of arguments before the parties carry out evidence. The Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to read out the lawsuit and then the Defendant prepares an answer to respond to the Plaintiff's claim.

The answer is the right of the defendant to refute the arguments submitted by the Plaintiff. This is in accordance with the main principle in civil procedural law, namely the principle of audi alteram partem, which essentially requires the judge who tries the case/dispute to provide equal opportunities to the parties to defend their respective interests.

Regarding the format of the answer itself, it is not regulated in detail and firmly in positive law or applicable laws and regulations. This is different from the preparation of a letter of claim which is required to meet formal and material requirements. What must be included in the answer are the exception arguments and the rebuttal arguments against the subject matter. In the exception, the Defendant/Co-Defendant will usually convey the argument that the Plaintiff's claim does not meet the formal requirements, such as the object of the claim is not clear (error in objecto), the claim is the wrong party (error in persona), or the arguments in the claim are not clear (Obscuur Libel).

The error in objecto exception is essentially an error regarding the object of the dispute. In a civil case, there is an object of dispute that forms the basis of the claim. For example, in a civil case regarding a land ownership dispute, the object of the dispute is land/land. The Plaintiff must be able to clearly and firmly describe in the letter of claim the physical data of the object of the dispute such as the area of land/land, boundaries, and basis of rights. If it cannot be described completely and clearly, the claim has the potential to be declared inadmissible.

Land/Land as the Object of Dispute in Civil Cases

The following is an example case of the application of an exception error in objecto in a civil case. M DG. T. et al (as the Heirs of the late B DG. T) as the Plaintiffs have sued PT. PI, HY, and WH as the Defendants as well as the Lurah of Parangloe and the Camat of Tamalanrea as the Co-Defendants in the Makassar District Court.

The claim in the a quo case is essentially regarding a land ownership dispute (hereinafter referred to as the object of dispute) covering an area of 1.22 Ha or + 12,200 m2 (approximately twelve thousand two hundred square meters) with a basis of rights in the form of Rintjik on plot number 31 DI, Kohir Number 226 CI, which was formerly located in Bontoa Village, Bira District, Maros Kewadanan, now located on Jalan Lingkar Barat, Parang Loe Village, Tamalanrea District, Makassar City, South Sulawesi Province.

The Plaintiffs argued that the object of the dispute belonged to them as the Heirs. However, the object of the dispute has been transferred by HY to WH to be further transferred by WH to PT. PI before the Head of Tamalanrea Sub-district as the Land Deed Official (PPAT) and witnessed by the Head of Parangloe Village.

In their answer, the Defendants and Co-Defendants focused on the exception argument regarding the legal standing of the heirs which is obscuur libel and the lawsuit which is error in objecto (error in objecto).

Brief Description of the Decision Judex Factie and Judex Jurist

The Makassar District Court as the first-level Judex Factie has rendered a decision in the a quo case with number: 431/Pdt.G/2020/PN Mks. dated October 18, 2021, which in essence rejected the exception from the Defendants/Co-Defendants and partially granted the Plaintiff's claim. Based on the Decision of the Makassar District Court, the object of the dispute in the a quo case was declared to belong to the Plaintiffs as the Heirs of the late B DG. T and the act/action of WH in transferring/releasing rights to PT. PI is an unlawful/illegal act and has no binding force. PT. PI was asked to immediately vacate the object of the dispute and hand it over to the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants then filed an appeal to the Makassar High Court. As for the Makassar High Court as Judex Factie appellate level through Decision Number: 102/PDT/2022/PT MKS dated June 16, 2022, overturned the Decision of the Makassar District Court Number: 431/Pdt.G/2020/PN Mks. dated October 18, 2021. The Makassar High Court in its verdict judged itself to declare the appeal of the Appellants/Former Plaintiffs inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke Verklaard), so that it can be seen that the Panel of Judges who tried the case at the appeal level agreed with the exception argument from the Defendants/Co-Defendants, especially regarding the expression argument error in objecto.

The Heirs of the late B DG. T then took legal action for Cassation at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The Cassation Memorandum was received by the Registrar of the Makassar District Court on August 18, 2022. In their cassation memorandum, the Plaintiffs/Cassation Applicants in essence requested and pleaded that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia as Judex Jurist cancel the Decision of the Makassar High Court Number 102/PDT/2022/PT MKS dated June 16, 2022 and uphold the Decision of the Makassar District Court Number: 431/Pdt.G/2020/PN Mks. dated October 18, 2021.

As for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia through the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4846 K/Pdt/2023 dated December 20, 2023, it is of the opinion that the Makassar High Court as the appellate level Judex Factie did not err in applying the law and agreed to state that the plaintiff's claim was declared inadmissible due to error in objecto. Why is that?

Mistaken in Determining the Object of the Dispute Causes the Lawsuit to be Inadmissible

That, in fact, during the examination of the case at the first level trial, it was revealed facts based on witness statements and local inspections, the object of the dispute controlled by PT. PI is located on Jalan Lingkar Barat, Parangloe Village (formerly Bira Village), Tamalanrea District, Makassar City, while on the other hand the Plaintiffs argued that the object of the dispute based on Rincik in plot Number 226 CI Kohir 31 D1 is located in Bontoa Village, Bira District, Maros Kewadanan.

Based on the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (1) letter b of Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 51 of 1971 concerning Changes in the Boundaries of the Makassar Municipality and the Regencies of Gowa, Maros and Pangkajene and Islands Within the Regional Environment of the Province of South Sulawesi, it does not recognize the term Bira District, but rather Bira Village. Therefore, there has been an error regarding the object of the dispute (error in objecto) where the Plaintiffs argued that the object of the dispute controlled by PT. PI as Defendant I is located in Bira District, but in fact based on witness statements and the results of the local examination the object of the dispute is located in the village of Bira as also confirmed by the provisions contained in Government Regulation Number 51 of 1971.

Villages and sub-districts are in fact also different administrative areas and units. A village is an administrative unit located in a rural area and is usually normatively part of a sub-district. Meanwhile, a sub-district is a part of the Regency/City area. Thus, it is proven that an error in determining the object of the dispute will result in the lawsuit being declared inadmissible.