Definition of “Aanhanging Geding”
The term aanhanging geding refers to the under-process status of a case and is often misinterpreted with the theory of exceptio litis pendentis. While aanhanging describe thestatus of a case, exceptio litis pendentis refers to one of the types of demurrers (a legal instrument). However, it is important to note that aanhanging geding and exceptio litis pendentis are not explicitly regulated under Indonesian law. Rather, it is a legal theory that has developed and is implemented in judicial practice in Indonesian courts.
According to Yahya Harahap, exceptio litis pendentis refers to a demurrer raised by the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff has already submitted a similar lawsuit, which is currently under review at the appeal or cassation level or at least has not yet obtained a final and binding ruling, also known as aanhanging. This legal theory grants the Panel of Judges the authority to reject the new lawsuits to avoid overlapping and contradictory rulings in two different cases.
It is crucial to understand that an exceptio litis pendentis is defined as a formal demurrer, that is, an objection regarding procedural or formal aspects of a case, not the substance of the case itself.
Purpose of Aanhanging Geding
The application of the aanhanging in demurrers serves several important purposes, namely:
- To prevent conflicting judgments from arising due to multiple lawsuits concerning the same legal matter.
- To promote procedural efficiency within the judiciary.
- To ensure legal certainty and fairness for all parties involved in the dispute.
Illustration from Practice
To further show the application of aanhanging geding in Indonesian legal practice, we may refer to Case Number 339/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jkt.Sel. In this case, the District Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in 2021 was inadmissable on the grounds that a similar lawsuit—Case Number 614—involving essentially the same legal subject matter and parties had already been filed and was still pending a final and binding decision. While the Plaintiff included additional parties as Defendants in Case No. 339, the Panel of Judges noted that the core dispute and the identities of the parties substantially overlapped with those in Case No. 614.
The District Court considered that, in order to prevent overlapping proceedings related to the new case that had been filed and is still pending without a final and binding ruling, the demurrer raised by the Defendants and Co-Defendants should be granted.
“Menimbang, bahwa untuk menghindari adanya putusan yang tumpang tindih dan saling bertentangan dikemudian hari. Maka seharusnya Penggugat menunggu dulu perkara tersebut mempunyai kekuatan hukum yang tetap barulah mengambil langkah-langkah hukum selanjutnya. Oleh karena itu keberatan Para Tergugat bahwa Penggugat mengajukan gugatan pada obyek gugatan yang sama (Litis Pendetis/Sub Judice) yang saat diajukan gugatan masih berlangsung pemeriksannya maka eksepsi Para Tergugat point angka 1 ( satu ) dapat dibenarkan dan diterima”;
(Considering, in order to avoid overlapping and contradictory rulings in the future, the Plaintiff should have waited until the ongoing case obtained binding legal force before taking further legal action. Therefore, the Defendants’ demurrer—that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit concerning the same object of dispute (litis pendens/sub judice) while the previous case was still under examination—is justified and thus the Defendants’ demurrer, Point 1, is accepted and granted).
Conclusion
Aanhanging geding & exception litis pendentis play a crucial role in maintaining judicial consistency, avoiding redundant litigation, and upholding the integrity of the legal process. These principles also function as safeguards against parties acting in bad faith by filing multiple claims on the same matter. Through continued judicial recognition and application, the principle continues to shape procedural fairness in Indonesia’s civil litigation system.