Reconstruction of Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard Verdict In the Law of Civil Procedure as a Manifestation of Fast, Simple, Low Cost and Complete Principle of Justice

Dispute resolution through court is more favorable because the binding decisions of judges can resolve cases. This study discusses ratio legis of niet ontvankelijke verklaard in the law of civil procedure and in the formulation of the delimitation of the judge in giving niet ontvankelijke verklaard in the fast, simple, low cost, and complete settlement of civil disputes. This study used legal research methods with legislation and conceptual approaches. The result of the study showed that The limitation of the judge in examining the lawsuit that does not meet the formal requirements and decides the lawsuit is inadmissible ( niet onvankelijk verklaard ), in the absence of fast, simple, low-cost, and complete civil disputes, as stated in the Draft Bill of the Law of Civil Procedure, which is essentially related to the types of exceptions that can become the basis for the judge in determining the lawsuit to be inadmissible ( niet onvankelijk verklaard ). Indonesia's current civil procedure laws, HIR and RBg, do not specifically outline the standards that a judge must employ to declare that a matter is inappropriate for filing ( niet onvankelijk verklaard ). Before making a ruling that is not admissible ( niet onvankelijk verklaard ) in the settlement, the judge must be aware of his or her restrictions in this situation. As stated in the Draft Bill of the Law of Civil Procedure, the judge is limited in examining lawsuits that do not meet the formal requirements and deciding that the lawsuit is inadmissible ( niet onvankelijk verklaard ), in the absence of quick, easy, inexpensive, and comprehensive civil disputes. This limitation is essentially related to the types of exceptions that can become the basis for the judge in determining that the lawsuit is inadmissible ( niet onvankelijk verklaard ).

that, "Justice is held simply, quickly and in low cost," in the process of resolving the dispute, has established alternative dispute resolution emphasizing on the development of a cooperative and consensual method of dispute resolution (mutual acceptable solution) with "informal procedure" outside the court. 1 One of the main considerations in dispute resolution through the court is the decision of the judge as the amiable compositour 2 which is binding and enforceable if it is not performed voluntarily by the defeated party so that the seekers of justice think and expect that the decision of the judge can resolve the case between them completely. However, the high interest in dispute resolution through court has factually been one of the causes of case backlog at the subordinate court, the court of appeal, and at the Supreme Court. 3 Given that, in contrast to the form of alternative dispute resolution that prioritizes settlement in win-win solution, 4 dispute resolution through the judiciary is considered to produce decisions that are win-lose, 5 so that there will always be parties who object and file legal remedies against the judge's decision which ends in the case backlog at the appeal, cassation, and judicial review.
In addition, it is different from the form of alternative dispute resolution through arbitration which expressly has limited legal remedies for arbitral awards as confirmed in Article 60 of Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Law No. 30/1999) which in detail regulates, "arbitral award is final and has permanent legal force and is binding on the parties", the decision of the first level institution or subordinate court can always be brought to the appeal, unless otherwise provided by law. 6  of appeal can also always be filed as a cassation, unless otherwise provided by law. 7 Furthermore, decisions at the cassation level can also always be submitted for review in the event that certain circumstances stipulated in the law are met. 8 9 Likewise, the judgment at the appeal level can also always be filed as a cassation, unless otherwise provided by law. 10 Furthermore, decisions at the cassation level can also always be submitted for review in the event that certain circumstances stipulated in the law are met. 11 In addition, the filing of a new lawsuit at the same time as the legal remedy against the decision in the same case, can also lead to the emergence of a niet ontvankelijke verklaard for the second time against a new lawsuit due to an exception litis pendentis. 12 This situation causes the case settlement process to be prolonged and not in accordance with the principles of justice that is fast, simple, low cost, and complete.
Likewise, in the case of an attempt to file a lawsuit that has only been made after an appeal, cassation and/or judicial review, a deadlock also causes the case to be more protracted and it does not reflect the principle of justice that is fast, of ultra petita or it is the authority of the judge within the scope of the principle of active judge in examining and deciding civil cases. 14 This doubt is a consequence of the absence of rigid rules in law of civil procedure which provides limits for judges in being active to in ex officio manner examine the formal requirements of the lawsuit and decide the civil case with the injunction stating that the plaintiff's lawsuit cannot be accepted (niet ontvankelijke verklaard), without the exception of the defendant. The Law of Civil Procedure also does not provide for the forms of exceptions that can become the basis for the judge in deciding that plaintiff's lawsuit cannot be accepted (niet ontvankelijke verklaard).
Regarding this, the judge's decision must reflect the image of the law as a whole, which is gerechttigheid/equality, rechtsicherheit/certainty, and purposiveness (zweckmaes sigkeit). 15 In order to realize the image of the law, judges are obliged to help the justice seekers and try to overcome all problems and obstacles to achieve justice that is simple, fast, low cost, and complete. Therefore, it is necessary to elaborate and conduct legal discovery related to the limitation of judges in giving decision with injunction, which declares that the plaintiff's lawsuit is inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard) so that the settlement process is not prolonged and taking a long time and greater cost. 16 It is in line with William E. Glade Stone that "justice delayed is justice denied "and 17 the classical law "litis fini oportet" which means "everything must have an end". 18 This is to realize the vision of the Supreme Court in "Judicial Reform Blueprint 2010-2032", that is "The realization of the Indonesian Supreme Judiciary", with one of the missions of "providing fair legal services to justice seekers" through the simplification program of the procedural process which aims to accelerate the process of resolving cases and reducing the flow of cases to the cassation level. Therefore, it is necessary to regulate limitations on judges in giving injunction declaring that the plaintiff's lawsuit is inadmissable (niet ontvankelijke verklaard) so that the settlement process is not prolonged and does not take a long time and great cost.
However, in the Draft Bill on Law of civil procedure that has been submitted to the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas), the related arrangement that is the basis for the judge to give decision with injunction declaring that the lawsuit is (niet onvankelijk verklaard), is still identical in its principle, and does inadmissable not regulate in more detail than what has been stipulated in the HIR and RBg that is only the exception of absolute competence and relative competence can be the basis of a judge in giving decision with injunction declaring that the lawsuit is inadmissable (niet onvankelijk verklaard). This provision is as contained in Article 75, Article 76, Article 77, and Article 161 paragraph (2) letter a of the Draft Bill on Law of civil procedure as follows, Therefore, it is necessary to make new arrangements which in detail regulate: a. The forms of exception that can be the basis for judge's in dropping lawsuits to be inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard); b. The limitation of the judge in examining lawsuits that do not meet the formal requirements and dropping lawsuits to be inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard), without the exception of the defendant; and c. The limitation of a legal remedy that can be taken against injunction declaring that the lawsuit is inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard).
Therefore, this study is expected to provide a proposal and/or overview of the formulation of limitation for the judge in giving the decision of niet ontvankelijke verklaard in the settlement of civil disputes that is fast, simple, low cost, and complete. Thus, this study discusses ratio legis of giving of niet ontvankelijke verklaard verdict in the Law of civil procedure and in the formulation of the limitation of the judge in giving niet ontvankelijke verklaard verdict in the civil dispute resolution which is fast, simple, low cost, and complete.
This study used the doctrinal research method presenting legislation systematically, analyzing the relationships between these regulations, explaining the problems, and allowing for predicting development in the future. 19 Doctrinal research type aims to produce a systematic explanation of the legal rules governing the problem at hand. In this case, the research was carried out by analyzing the relationship between the rules of law with the problems. 20 This legal research was conducted to analyze the reconstruction of the niet ontvankelijke verklaard verdict in law of civil procedure as a manifestation of the principle of justice that is fast, simple, low cost, and complete.
This study also used statute approach to study the consistency and conformity between the law and other laws or between the law and the constitution or between regulation and law. 21 The legislation used was the regulation related to the reconstruction of the niet ontvankelijke verklaard verdict in the law of civil procedure as a manifestation of the principle of justice that is fast, simple, low cost, and complete, such as BW, HIR, Rv, Law no. 48/2009, etc. This study also used conceptual approach to start from the views and doctrines that develop in the science of law. The legal concepts used in this study were those related to the theory of legal reconstruction, the theory of niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard, Law of civil procedure, the principle of fast, simple, low cost and complete, The Theory of Tangent point, the Principle of Active Judges and the Principle of Passive Judges, as well as the Prohibition of Ultra Petita and The Theory of Justice based on Pancasila. The essence of the decision based on the sentence "For the Sake of Justice

Ratio Legis of Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard Verdict in the Law of Civil
Based on Belief in the Almighty God" is the enforcement of the law for justice. In reality, a case is processed and judged according to legislation. It is rarely found that a case is accompanied by sociological and philosophical considerations or moral justice. 24 The judge's decision is the "crown" and "peak" that reflects the values of justice; the ultimate truth; human rights; legal knowledge or facts that are sound, quality, and factual and a reflection of the ethics, mentality, and morals of the judge.
There are 4 (four) main principles of judge's decision. These principles are first,  The judge shall not reject a case with reason that the law is not or less clear.
It is because judge is considered as understand the law (curialus novit). If the law 34 Hariyanto and Yustiawan (n 32). [198].

Inadmissible (Niet Onvankelijke Verklaard)
In resolving a civil case, one of the duties of the judge is to investigate whether the legal relationship on which the lawsuit is based actually exists or not.
To understand this matter, a judge must know the truth of the correspond event objectively through the evidentiary process. The evidentiary process is intended to 36  obtain the truth of an event and aims to establish the legal relationship between the two parties and establish a verdict based on the results of the evidentiary process. 40 In addition, in the implementation of the evidentiary process, the judge is in charge of dividing the burden of proof, assessing whether evidence is acceptable or not, and assessing the strength of evidence, where in carrying out these duties, the judge is bound to valid evidence based on legislation, submitted by the parties to the dispute before the court. 41 Based on this matter, in the examination of civil cases, the judge's conviction is not essential in determining the truth of a civil event. This is different from the settlement and examination of criminal cases which underlines that, in addition to being based on valid evidence in accordance with laws and regulations, the judge's conviction is absolutely necessary to determine whether the defendant is guilty and can be held criminally liable or not. 42 In the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition such as in the United Kingdom, the difference in the examination of civil and criminal cases is terminologically interpreted with different terms, which are preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt, or by experts in Indonesia is commonly contrasted with the value of truth obtained from the examination process of civil procedure and criminal procedure, where the truth according to the criminal procedure process is "material truth" while the truth in the civil procedure process is "formal truth". 43 In classical legal theory, as proposed by LJ. van Aperdoorn, "civil judges must accept formal truth, while criminal judges must seek material truth". 44 The formal truth referred to in the Law of civil procedure arises as a consequence of which it is the litigants who bear the burden of proof regarding the complete truth to be 40 Tata  presented before the court. Furthermore, after the judge accommodates and accepts all the truths proposed by the litigants, it becomes the duty of the judge to establish the truth based on the evidentiary process that has been carried out in accordance with the applicable legal rules, both in the narrow sense and in the broad sense, as well as the awareness and mind of the law adopted by the judge. 45 Therefore, the notion of formal truth cannot be interpreted as a half-truth or unreal truth.
In its development, the contrast separation of related to formal truth and material truth in the examination of law of civil procedure is no longer relevant, where in practice there is a public demand to seek formal truth and material truth simultaneously in the examination of a civil case. 46 At first, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court affirmed that the Civil Court adheres to a formal system of proof as affirmed in the legal rules of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court number 583 K/ Sip/1970 dated February 10, 1971. However, in its development, the rule of law has changed so there is no prohibition for civil judges to find the ultimate truth (material truth). However, if the ultimate truth (material truth) cannot be found in the court process, the law still justifies if the judge finds and makes a decision based on the formal truth. 47 This is as stated in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court Number /1983/ dated March 6, 1985 The jurisprudence rules further emphasize that there has been a shift in the meaning of the principle of passive judges who originally only required civil judges to seek formal truth in a civil case, but currently, judges can also actively seek material truth in a civil case, as long as the material truth is also supported by valid evidence according to the Law of civil procedure, as described in the previous subchapter. 50 Furthermore, with regard to the limitation of judges in actively seeking material truth in the civil case settlement process, it is basically the rules of law of 45  civil procedure that apply, which are coercive and must be obeyed, as long as the law of civil procedure has not shifted the meaning of the principle of passive judges through the rules of jurisprudence, from the process of preparing the lawsuit until implementing the judge's decision.

K/Pdt
As  the presence of contradiction between posita and petitum; peritum is not detailed; or nebis in idem; 6) the lawsuit is premature lawsuit; and 7) the lawsuit is expired, as before the lawsuit is filed or at the time of drafting the lawsuit, the judge can give advice to improve the lawsuit so as to not contain formal defect, or in the case of a formal defect with respect to a lawsuit outside the competence, the lawsuit is premature, the nebis in idem or lawsuit expiration, the filing and examination of the case can be prevented without having to go through the court process. This may help the court in overcoming the problem of case backlog.
In addition, with the implementation of the provisions of Article 132 of HIR, either through the implementation of local examination or through evidence requested by the judge from the parties, it can be found that there are other parties interested in the settlement of the case but not sued in the case, then the judge can provide guidance to the parties to attract the third party as a party to the case. If the provisions of Article 132 of this HIR are applied by a judge, it can reduce the potential for a lawsuit to be declared inadmissible due to the lack of parties sued (plurium litis consortium), considering that under the provisions of Article 280 of Rv, an application for intervention may be submitted on the designated day of the hearing, before or at the time the final conclusions are drawn for the ongoing case.
Therefore, as long as there has not been reading and/or submission of conclusions from the litigants, a third party may request an intervention.
Similarly, if the provisions of Article 178 paragraph (1) HIR are applied, then even if the plaintiff's lawsuit does not mention the legal basis of his lawsuit, or has mentioned the wrong legal basis, the judge can refine the legal basis of the lawsuit in his decision. This is as stated in the explanation of Article 178 paragraph (1) of HIR.

Conclusion
As for ratio legis in the case of a verdict declaring that the lawsuit is inadmissible (niet onvankelijke verklaard), it is intended that civil lawsuits that do not meet the formal requirements of a lawsuit can be resolved at the beginning of the case settlement process, without first checking the subject matter of the case.
This aims to settle the case briefly, simply, at low cost, and complete, so that with the niet onvankelijke verklaard, the plaintiff does not need to spend a large sum of money and spend a lot of time to defend the arguments of his lawsuit that do not meet the formal requirements, until it is decided together with the subject matter in the final decision.
HIR and RBg as the current law of civil procedure in Indonesia have not set out in detail the basis for a judge to give decision with injunction declaring that the lawsuit is inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard). This is still largely derived from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court which, in fact, overrides the provisions of the Law of civil procedure itself, even very often the judge rendering the lawsuit inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard). In this case, it is necessary to determine the formulation of the judge's limitation in rendering a decision that is inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard) in the settlement.
In civil disputes that are fast, simple, low cost, and complete, as stated in the Draft Bill of the Law of Civil Procedure, which is essentially related to the forms of exceptions that can become the basis for the judge in deciding the lawsuit to be inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard), the limitation of the judge in examining the lawsuit that does not meet the formal requirements and decides the lawsuit to be is inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard), in the absence of the exception of the defendant, as well as the limitation of the legal remedies that can be made against the decision with injunction declaring the lawsuit inadmissible (niet onvankelijk verklaard).