Enforcement is a court action to carry out a judgment that has met the requirements for enforcement. In civil court practice, enforcement may give rise to disputes if the court seizes property belonging to a third party or if the party against whom enforcement is sought believes that the execution of the judgment does not comply with the judgment’s terms and the seizure procedures.
Civil procedural law in Indonesia recognizes two forms of opposition to enforcement: third-party opposition (derden verzet), as provided for in Article 195(6)/Article 206( (6) Rbg in conjunction with Article 208 HIR, and opposition by the party subject to enforcement (partij verzet) as regulated in Article 207 HIR in conjunction with Article 197 HIR. Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 7 of 2012 concerning Legal Formulations Resulting from Plenary Sessions of the Chambers of the Supreme Court as Guidelines for the Performance of Duties by Courts (“SEMA No. 7 of 2012”) in conjunction with Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 3 of 2018 on the Implementation of the Legal Formulations Resulting from the 2018 Plenary Session of the Supreme Court Chambers as Guidelines for the Performance of Duties by the Courts (“SEMA No. 3 of 2018”) in conjunction with Decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court No. 159/KMA/SK. HK2/VIII/2026 on the Implementation of Book II of the Guidelines for Technical Administration and Judicial Procedures (“Book II Guidelines”) sets forth the grounds for filing and the scope of these two forms of appeal.
- What are “Derden Verzet” and “Partij Verzet”?
Third-Party Objection (Derden Verzet)
A Derden Verzet is an objection filed by a party outside the original case because the seizure or enforcement interferes with that party’s legal rights to the property subject to enforcement.
SEMA No. 7 of 2012 in conjunction with SEMA No. 3 of 2018 confirms that a third-party objection under Article 195(6) in conjunction with Article 208 of the HIR may be filed regarding the validity of an attachment order, an attachment report, an execution order, or an auction order on the grounds of “ownership.” Furthermore, Book II of the Guidelines expands the grounds for third-party protection against security attachments or execution attachments, which include ownership rights, building use rights (HGB), business use rights (HGU), mortgage rights, usufruct rights, and lease rights, provided that such rights are relevant and can be asserted against the execution of the attachment.
The Opponent must prove the basis of their rights to the seized property through relevant evidence. A land title certificate may serve as important evidence; however, the court must still assess the validity of the acquisition of the right, the time of acquisition, and the legal relationship between the Opponent and the property subject to execution.
For example, a court seizes a parcel of land owned by the Respondent in the Enforcement Proceedings. A third party files an objection by presenting a title deed (SHM) for the land that was issued in their name prior to the seizure. In such a situation, the third party may file a “derden verzet” to request that the court examine the validity of the seizure of the property in question and evaluate the certificate along with other relevant evidence, the validity and timing of the acquisition of rights, as well as the legal relationship between the claimant and the property subject to execution in order to determine the claimant’s rights to the property subject to execution.
- Objection by the Party Subject to Enforcement (Partij Verzet)
Pursuant to Article 207 of the HIR/Article 225 of the Rbg, a “Partij Verzet” is an objection filed by the party subject to enforcement (the losing party) against the execution of a seizure or a judgment.
SEMA No. 7 of 2012 lists two grounds for a “Partij Verzet” under Article 207 of the HIR/Article 225 of the Rbg: first, that the opposing party has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the judgment’s ruling; or second, that there was an error in the seizure procedure—for example, the seizure exceeded the area of the property that should have been seized, as provided for in Article 197 of the HIR/Article 209 of the Rbg.
An objection (partij verzet) may be filed if the party subject to enforcement argues that the obligations under the judgment have been fulfilled or that there was an error in the execution of the seizure or enforcement. The grounds for the objection must be directly related to the execution of the judgment and may not be used to reopen the merits of a case that has become final and binding.
Who can file an objection?
- Objectors in a Third-Party Objection
A third party with a right to the seized property may file a third-party objection. In land dispute cases, SEMA No. 3/2018 requires that the objection be based on grounds of ownership and challenge the validity of the seizure order, the seizure report, the execution order, or the auction order.
The objector must submit evidence of their title. If the objector cannot prove their rights, the court may dismiss the objection and uphold the attachment.
- Objection in the Partij Verzet
The Partij Verzet is an objection filed by the losing party in a case (the party against whom enforcement is sought) against the enforcement of a court judgment.
Pursuant to Article 207 of the HIR/Article 225 of the RBg in conjunction with SEMA No. 7 of 2012, an objection may only be filed on the grounds that the objector has fulfilled their obligations in accordance with the judgment’s ruling or if there was an error in the execution of the seizure, such as when the seized property exceeds the permitted area.
An opposition is not a means for the opposing party to request that the court reexamine the merits of the case that has already been decided. The opposing party must demonstrate a direct connection between the grounds for the opposition and the execution proceedings.
When and where is an objection filed?
An objection may be filed as long as the attachment or enforcement proceedings are still ongoing, provided that the subject of enforcement has not yet been handed over to the petitioner or the successful bidder. The objection is filed with the Chief Judge of the District Court that issued the order setting forth the enforcement plan.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 4 of 2016 concerning the Implementation of the Formulation of the Results of the 2016 Plenary Session of the Supreme Court Chambers as Guidelines for the Performance of Duties by Courts (“SEMA No. 4 of 2016”), if the subject of execution or the auctioned property has already been handed over to the applicant for execution or the winning bidder, the execution process is deemed legally complete. If a third party still feels aggrieved or claims rights to the property, that party must file a lawsuit, not an objection (derden verzet).
This provision is consistent with Supreme Court Decision No. 1281 K/Sip/1979 dated April 15, 1981, which essentially held that “an objection to enforcement filed after enforcement has been carried out is inadmissible.”
What is the procedure for filing and reviewing an objection?
- Registration as a New Case
According to Book II of the Guidelines, both third-party objections (derden verzet) and party objections (partij verzet) are registered as new cases using the code (Pdt.Bth) and are examined as separate cases related to the enforcement of the judgment in the original case.
An objection must meet the following formal requirements:
|
Formal Requirements |
Third-Party Objection (Derden Verzet) |
Objection by a party to the case (Partij Verzet) |
|
Identity of the Parties |
The identities of the resisters and those being resisted. | The identities of the resisters and those being resisted. |
| Legal Relationship | To explain the legal relationship between the claimant and the defendant, as well as the claimant’s relationship with the subject matter of the claim. |
To explain the legal relationship between the claimant and the defendant, as well as the relationship between the parties and the subject matter of the dispute. |
|
Legal grounds or interests |
To explain the legal rights or interests of a third party with respect to the property subject to attachment or execution, which form the basis for filing an objection.
|
Explaining the grounds for objection to the execution of the judgment, such as the defendant having fulfilled their obligations in accordance with the judgment or an error having occurred in the execution of the seizure. |
| Petition | – Requesting the court to declare the defendant’s objection a valid objection,
– Ordering the lifting of the attachment/suspension of the enforcement proceedings, and/or excluding the subject matter of the case from the original judgment that has become final and binding
|
– Requesting the court to declare the defendant’s objection a valid objection, – Ordering the lifting of the attachment/suspension of the enforcement proceedings, and/or excluding the subject matter of the case from the original judgment that has become final and binding. |
Determining the Parties to Be Sued
SEMA No. 3 of 2018 in conjunction with Handbook II states that all parties to the original case or the contested case must be named as defendants in the objection proceeding. This provision allows the court to examine the interests of all parties related to the subject matter of enforcement.
Objections to the Seizure of Marital Property
Guideline Book II distinguishes between objections to the seizure of joint property and the seizure of separate property or the original property of the husband or wife. A third-party objection filed by a husband or wife against the seizure of joint property is not admissible because joint property serves as collateral for the payment of a debt incurred by the husband or wife during the marriage and is a joint liability.
Conversely, if the seized property consists of separate property or property originally belonging to one of the spouses, the husband or wife may file a third-party objection provided they can prove ownership. Such an objection may be excluded if the spouses are bound by a community property regime or a marital agreement regarding the pooling of earnings and income, or if they co-signed a debt agreement and are therefore jointly liable for the debt.
Suspension of Enforcement
In principle, the filing of a third-party objection does not suspend enforcement, as provided for in Article 207(3) of the HIR/227 RBg in conjunction with the Guidelines in Book II. The Chief Judge of the District Court may suspend enforcement if preliminary evidence indicates that the objection has a strong legal basis and that proceeding with enforcement could potentially violate the rights of a third party. This assessment must focus on the validity of the objector’s rights, the time of acquisition of those rights, and the suitability of the property to be subject to execution.
Examples of circumstances that may constitute strong grounds for suspending execution:
|
Circumstances |
Evidence |
Reasons for the suspension |
|
The land had been registered in the name of a third party before the lien was placed on it. |
Land title certificate, land registry, and date of registration of the title. | Preliminary evidence indicates that the property may be subject to a third-party right that is not involved in the original case. |
| The vehicles to be auctioned had long been owned by a third party prior to the repossession. | Vehicle Registration Certificate (BPKB), Vehicle Registration Card (STNK), proof of purchase, and documents evidencing ownership of the vehicle. |
There are indications that the property to be seized does not belong to the losing party in the case. |
|
The seized property exceeds the property listed in the seizure order or seizure report. |
Seizure order, seizure report, certificate, survey document, or survey results. | There are indications that the enforcement action includes property that should not have been seized. |
|
The enforcement documents indicate discrepancies in the identity or boundaries of the property. |
Certificates, parcel maps, survey reports, and enforcement order documents. |
A stay of enforcement may be necessary to ensure that the property subject to enforcement actually corresponds to the property described in the judgment. |
The Chief Judge of the District Court may suspend enforcement pending the hearing of an objection if the objector presents strong preliminary evidence that the subject of enforcement is their right. For example, the objector may possess a land title certificate and a deed of agreement supporting their ownership. The suspension is intended to prevent harm to the party holding rights to the subject property before the court hears and decides the objection.
Conversely, if a third party acquired or registered a land right only after the attachment was imposed, the court must examine the timing and validity of that acquisition. Registration after the attachment does not in and of itself prove that the acquisition of the right is invalid, but such circumstances require further examination.
This is evident in the Decision of the Palembang District Court No. 106/Pdt.Bth/2016/PN Plg dated December 5, 2016, in which the court granted the objector’s motion for provisional relief and suspended the execution of the eviction order until the decision on the objection became final and binding.
On the merits of the case, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and recognized the defendant’s ownership of the disputed property based on the Replacement Certificate or a duplicate Certificate of Ownership.
Conclusion
A third-party objection is a legal remedy available to a third party to protect its rights regarding property that has been seized or is subject to enforcement, while an objection by the party subject to enforcement is a legal remedy available to that party to challenge the fulfillment of an obligation or the seizure procedure. Both are filed as new cases before the enforcement process is completed, by fulfilling formal requirements and involving all parties to the original case. In principle, filing an objection does not suspend enforcement, unless there are strong grounds to justify a suspension in accordance with applicable law.
MNL Law Firm provides civil law consultation and legal representation services for individuals and businesses facing issues related to seizure and the enforcement of court judgments. MNL Law Firm is ready to assist you by providing representation throughout the case resolution process in accordance with applicable procedural law.
References
- The Revised Indonesian Regulations (Het Herziene Indonesisch Reglement)
- Regulations on the Law for the Overseas Territories (RBg), provisions regarding enforcement and appeals, with article references based on the context of procedural law application.
- Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2012 on the Legal Formulations Resulting from the Plenary Session of the Chambers of the Supreme Court as Guidelines for the Performance of Duties by the Courts.
- Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 3 of 2018 on the Implementation of the Legal Formulations Resulting from the 2018 Plenary Session of the Supreme Court Chambers as Guidelines for the Performance of Duties by the Courts.
- Decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 159/KMA/SK.HK2/VIII/2026 on the Implementation of Book II of the Guidelines for Technical Administration and Judicial Procedures.
Author: Lasta Elfrida Sinaga, S.H.
Editor: Yohana Maranatha, S.H.,M.Kn.