Limited Material Truth in Civil Procedure: Objective Triggers and Safeguards for Judicial Intervention
Main Article Content
Abstract
Civil procedural law in Indonesia generally adopts the concept of formal truth, which is based on the facts and evidence presented by the parties in court. The application of this concept is related to the passive judge principle, which limits the judge's role in assessing the parties' arguments and evidence in order to maintain judicial neutrality and procedural certainty. However, the dominance of formal truth may create a gap between procedural and substantive justice due to economic disparities, unequal access to legal assistance, differences in access to information, and disparities in the parties' ability to present evidence. This study aims to analyze the weaknesses of the dominance of formal truth and formulate a limited material truth model in civil procedural law. This normative legal research employs statutory, conceptual, case, and philosophical approaches. The results show that formal truth has limitations in revealing the actual truth because it depends on the parties' ability to prove their claims. The full application of material truth may also potentially undermine judicial impartiality. Therefore, a limited material truth model is needed through objective parameters, including inequality between the parties, indications of evidence manipulation or abuse of legal process, and the need to realize substantive justice. This model is expected to balance legal certainty, procedural justice, and substantive justice.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Afriana, Anita, Ema Rahmawati, Rai Mantili, and Sherly Ayuna Putri. “Batasan asas hakim pasif dan aktif pada peradilan perdata.” Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum 7, no. 1 (2022): 142–154. https://doi.org/10.23920/jbmh.v7i1.1078.
Aisyah, Nandhyra Syafa Nur. “Legal analysis of pro bono legal aid in fulfilling the rights of marginalized groups in civil litigation: analisis hukum tentang bantuan hukum pro bono dalam mewujudkan hak-hak kelompok marginal dalam perkara perdata.” ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata 12, no. 1 (2026): 131–150. https://doi.org/10.36913/adhaper.v12i1.17.
Ardhan, Muhammad Urifianto, Maydi Jack Sandi, Kezia Estevania Christabel E, and Moody Rizqy Syailendra P. “Peran hakim dalam pembuktian peran perdata: studi kasus sengketa perjanjian sewa menyewa.” NUSANTARA : Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial 12, no. 5 (2025): 1996–2002. https://doi.org/10.31604/jips.v12i5.2025.1996-2002.
Aryana, Rizka Afi. “Penerapan prinsip hakim pasif dan aktif dalam proses pembuktian hukum acara perdata.” Jurnal Multidisiplin Ilmu Akademik 2, no. 1 (2025): 115–119. https://doi.org/10.61722/jmia.v2i1.3184.
Bachsin, Alzasyah, Hafiz Fathi Huga Ekoputro, Haykal Ikram Arya Ranggana, Javier Nixon Oktorifa Ramadhan, Muhammad Sultan Fadhillah, and Farahdinny Siswajanthy. “Kedudukan and Penilaian Hakim Terhadap Alat Bukti Elektronik Dalam Proses Pembuktian Perkara Perdata.” Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum 3, No. 3 (2025): 2364–70.
Banna, Nurrahim Hasan Al, Naufal Nafis Ardana, Muhammad Fakhri Kurniawan, and Ramadhan Dwi Prasetyo. “Analisis Ketimpangan Keadilan di Indonesia: Potret Buram Hukum yang Berpihak pada Kuasa.” Pancasila: Jurnal Keindonesiaan 5, no. 1 (2025): 125–134. https://doi.org/10.52738/pjk.v5i1.728.
Butarbutar, Elisabeth Nurhaini. “Arti Pentingnya Pembuktian dalam Proses Penemuan Hukum di Peradilan Perdata.” Mimbar Hukum 22, no. 2 (2010): 347–359. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.16225.
Damanik, Muhammad Irfan Luthfi, and Fauziah Lubis. “Arti Pentingnya Pembuktian Dalam Proses Penemuan Hukum Di Peradilan Perdata.” Judge: Jurnal Hukum 5, No. 02 (2024): 74–81.
Harahap, Asliani, Ayatullah Aulia Akbar, Nur Rafika, and Silvi Aulia Rizqi. “Analisis Ketimpangan Dalam Penerapan Hukum Melalui Perspektif Teori Hukum Kritis.” Jurnal Kebijakan Reformasi Hukum 10, No. 5 (2026): 121–32.
Jayadi, Hendri. “Kekuatan Pembuktian Keterangan Ahli Berdasarkan Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia.” AL-MANHAJ: Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial Islam 5, no. 2 (2023): 1815–1822. https://doi.org/10.37680/almanhaj.v5i2.3444.
Kamila, Alya Nur, Jundiyah Aqilah Rohmah, Falin Kharisma Alya, and Sri Handayani. “Lingkup Penerapan Asas Hakim bersifat Pasif dan Aktif dalam Pembuktian pada Perkara Perdata di Indonesia.” Jurnal Kajian Hukum Dan Kebijakan Publik 3, no. 4 (2026): 538–549. https://doi.org/10.62379/fw4dy055.
Lubis, Fauziah, Naura Fitri Zaskia Sinambela, Ardita Syahputri, Mellisa Meha, Tri Syahputri, and Fahrul Ramadhan Lubis. “Upaya mencari kebenaran materiil dalam hukum acara perdata.” Bureaucracy Journal : Indonesia Journal of Law and Social-Political Governance 5, no. 2 (2025): 1233–1246. https://doi.org/10.53363/bureau.v5i2.621.
Mairista, Missy, and Zulhidah. “Penegakan hukum yang berkeadilan dalam perspektif keadilan substantif dan supremasi hukum di indonesia.” Pendas : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar 11, no. 2 (2026): 200–211. https://doi.org/10.23969/jp.v11i2.52748.
Marda, Guruh, Vito Dewangga, Rafi Ashtari Musyaffa, and Cinta Sekar Kinanti. “Pembuktian Hukum Acara Perdata Melalui Pengetahuan Hakim.” Jurnal Magister Ilmu Hukum: Hukum dan Kesejahteraan 8, no. 2 (2023): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.36722/jmih.v8i2.2306.
Maulidiyah, Nurfauzah, and Yustria Novi Satriana. “Eksistensi Digital Evidence dalam Hukum Acara Perdata.” Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum 10, no. 1 (2019): 69–76. https://doi.org/10.26905/idjch.v10i1.2616.
Muqaddas, Busyro. “Mengkritisi Asas-asas Hukum Acara Perdata.” Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM 9, no. 20 (2002): 18–31. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol9.iss20.art2.
Parengkuan, Harumi Ram Tatiana, M. Fadlan Izyan, Naswan Nail, and Moulyta Elgi Trinanda. “Analisis Yuridis terhadap Efektivitas Mediasi dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbuatan Melawan Hukum berdasarkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2016.” Jurnal Hukum, Politik Dan Ilmu Sosial 5, no. 1 (2026): 62–78. https://doi.org/10.55606/jhpis.v5i1.5918.
Putra, Moody Rizqy Syailendra, Indri Elena Suni, Ekaprasetya Artha Kencana, and Veren Kasslim. “Asas Pasif Bagi Hakim Perdata Dalam Mengadili Sebuah Perkara Di Pengadilan: Studi Perkara No. 819/Pdt.G/2024/PN.Jkt.Utr.” Notary Law Journal 4, no. 2 (2025): 82–91. https://doi.org/10.32801/nolaj.v4i2.114.
Putri, Sherenika. “Peran Hakim Dalam Menjamin Keseimbangan Hak and Kewajiban Para Pihak Dalam Proses Persidangan Perdata.” Sriwijaya Journal Of Private Law 1, No. 2 (2025): 155–64.
Rangkuti, Liza Hafidzah Yusuf, and Orin Sabrina Pane. “Nilai Keadilan sebagai Landasan Pembentukan Undang-undang Bantuan Hukum Guna Mewujudkan Akses Terhadap Keadilan.” Neoclassical Legal Review: Journal of Law and Contemporary Issues 3, no. 1 (2024): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.32734/nlr.v3i1.15695.
Ratih, Soleh Adinda. “E-Court dan Keadilan Prosedural: Studi Empiris Perspektif Hakim Indonesia.” Hakim: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Sosial 3, no. 3 (2025): 1345–1358. https://doi.org/10.51903/wp8x7946.
Republic of Indonesia. Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (HIR).
Republic of Indonesia. Law No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power.
Sabadina, Uni. “Peranan Hakim dalam Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia ( Suatu Telaah Teoritis dan Normatif ).” Desiderata Law Review 2, no. 1 (2025): 14–25. https://doi.org/10.25299/dlr.2025.23917.
Salmah, Pristika Handayani, and Alwan Hadiyanto. “Kekuatan Pembuktian Akta Autentik dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdata di Indonesia.” Jurnal USM Law Review 9, no. 2 (2026): 1107–1127. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v9i2.13959.
Triani, Desi Anggun, and Putu Samawati. “Penetapan Asas Hakim Pasif dalam Praktek Peradilan Perdata di Pengadilan Negeri Kelas I A Palembang.” Lex LATA 7, no. 1 (2025): 64–75. https://doi.org/10.28946/lexl.v7i1.5122.
Wiraguna, Sidi Ahyar. “Dinamika Asas Hakim Pasif Dalam Pembaruan Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia: Sebuah Telaah Doktrinal.” Governance: Jurnal Ilmiah Kajian Politik Lokal Dan Pembangunan 12, No. 2 (2025): 496–501.