Article 134 of the Herziene Indonesisch Reglement (HIR) provides:
“If the dispute concerns a matter that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the District Court, a request may be made at any stage of the proceedings for the judge to declare that the court lacks jurisdiction, and the judge, by virtue of his or her office, is likewise obliged to declare such lack of jurisdiction.” (Rv. 132; IR. 136, 190.)
Explanation
Article 134 of the Herziene Indonesisch Reglement (HIR) constitutes one of the most important legal foundations of Indonesian civil procedural law concerning absolute competence (absolute competence or absolute jurisdiction). This provision affirms that whenever a case falls outside the absolute jurisdiction of the court examining it, both the parties and the judge are obliged to address the jurisdictional issue. Furthermore, the judge must declare the lack of jurisdiction on an ex officio basis.
Definition and Legal Significance of Article 134 Herziene Indonesisch Reglement:
Article 134 HIR stipulates that when a dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the District Court, an objection regarding jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the proceedings. In addition, the judge, by virtue of judicial office, is required to declare that the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
In Dutch legal terminology, such objections are commonly referred to as:
• Exceptie van onbevoegdheid (objection to lack of jurisdiction);
• Exceptio declinatoir (exception concerning absolute jurisdiction);
• Absolute competentie or absolute rechtsmacht (absolute jurisdiction);
• Atributie van rechtsmacht (attribution of judicial authority).
In English legal terminology, they are commonly known as:
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction;
• Absolute Jurisdiction;
• Lack of Jurisdiction Defence;
• Jurisdictional Objection.
Conceptually, absolute jurisdiction determines which judicial forum is authorized to adjudicate a dispute based on the nature, substance, or subject matter of the case, rather than its geographical location. Consequently, such jurisdiction cannot be conferred, waived, modified, or transferred by agreement of the parties.
Characteristics of Absolute Jurisdiction:
Absolute jurisdiction possesses several fundamental characteristics:
• It concerns the allocation of judicial authority among different court systems and jurisdictions;
• It may be challenged at any stage of the proceedings;
• It may be examined by the court without any objection from the parties (ex officio);
• Its violation generally results in the claim being declared inadmissible (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard or NO);
• It cannot be validated or cured through the consent of the parties.
Case Examples:
Case 1: Islamic Inheritance Dispute Filed Before a District Court
A Muslim heir files a lawsuit concerning the distribution of a deceased parent’s estate before a District Court. Under Indonesian law, inheritance disputes involving Muslim parties fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Religious Court. In such circumstances, the defendant may raise an exceptio declinatoir, or the judge may independently declare that the District Court lacks jurisdiction. As a result, the claim will be declared inadmissible (NO).
Case 2: Administrative Decision Challenged Through a Civil Lawsuit
A citizen files a lawsuit before a District Court seeking the annulment of a business licence revocation issued by a government official. Since the object of the dispute is an Administrative Decision, jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Administrative Court. Accordingly, the District Court must declare itself incompetent to hear the case.
Case 3: Sharia Economic Dispute
A customer and an Islamic bank become involved in a dispute concerning a murabahah financing agreement. If the claim is submitted to a District Court, the defendant may raise an objection based on lack of absolute jurisdiction because disputes relating to Islamic finance fall within the jurisdiction of the Religious Court.
Related Legal Principles:
- Principle of Legality of Jurisdiction. Every court may act only within the scope of authority granted by law.
- Ultra Vires Principle. A court may not adjudicate matters that fall outside its legally prescribed jurisdiction.
- Ex Officio Principle. Judges are required to examine issues of absolute jurisdiction even in the absence of objections from the parties. Article 134 HIR expressly embodies this principle.
- Principle of Legal Certainty. The allocation of jurisdiction among judicial institutions is intended to ensure certainty regarding the proper forum for dispute resolution.
- Due Process of Law. Legal proceedings must be conducted before a competent court established by law in order to ensure the legitimacy and validity of judicial decisions.
- Ius Curia Novit Principle. Judges are presumed to know the law (“the court knows the law”) and therefore cannot claim ignorance regarding jurisdictional limitations.
- Lawful Tribunal Principle. Every individual has the right to have his or her case examined by a court that has been lawfully established and vested with jurisdiction under applicable law.
Conclusion:
Article 134 HIR reflects the fundamental principle that judicial jurisdiction constitutes a matter of public order and public policy, rather than an issue subject to the will or agreement of the parties. Consequently, whenever a case falls outside the absolute jurisdiction of a particular court, an objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and the judge is under an obligation to declare the lack of jurisdiction ex officio. A violation of this principle generally results in the claim being declared Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (NO), meaning that it is inadmissible before the court.
