Civil Litigation Costs and Access to Justice in Indonesia

An Empirical Assessment of Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2012 at Banda Aceh District Court

Abstract

This article examines the implementation of Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 3 of 2012 on the costs of case processing and their management at the Banda Aceh District Court. Using an empirical-juridical and qualitative approach, the study combines analysis of the regulatory framework with field evidence obtained through observation, documentation, and interviews with court bailiffs and substitute bailiffs. The findings indicate that the court applies an advance-cost mechanism in civil litigation, provides information on relevant cost components, records expenditures, adjusts deposits when additional procedural steps are required, and returns unused balances after the case is completed. Interview evidence also indicates that execution-related costs vary according to the procedural acts required in a particular case, including service, summons, evidentiary needs, and execution measures. The article argues that the significance of PERMA No. 3 of 2012 lies not merely in accounting control but in its relationship to access to justice: predictable, traceable, and refundable litigation costs reduce uncertainty for court users and support the constitutional and statutory ideal of simple, speedy, and low-cost justice. At the same time, the study cautions against treating all expenses incurred by a successful litigant as recoverable court costs, because regulated case-processing costs must be distinguished from private litigation expenditure. On the available evidence, the Banda Aceh District Court demonstrates substantial procedural conformity with the transparency and accountability objectives of PERMA No. 3 of 2012, although the single-court design and reliance on a limited number of interviews require cautious generalization.