LEGAL AMBIGUITY OR PROTECTION? THE IMPACT OF PROVISION DECISIONS ON CIVIL COURTS IN INDONESIA

Abstract

Provisional awards in Indonesian civil courts are often used as a temporary legal protection mechanism for parties facing the risk of loss during the litigation process. However, the absence of explicit norms in the civil procedural law and the wide discretion of judges in their application have led to legal ambiguity and uncertainty in court practice. This research uses a normative juridical approach with an analysis of 25 court decisions from various levels to examine the extent to which provisions truly function as protectors of rights, or instead become potential legal deviations. The findings show that provisions are often decided without a clear basis and often touch on the substance of the case. This is contrary to the principles of procedural justice and legal certainty. This article proposes a conceptual model for the reformulation of provisions, including prima facie requirements, time limits for enforcement, and objection mechanisms, in order to ensure that the function of provisions remains within the framework of fair, proportional, and accountable protection. This research contributes to the strengthening of civil procedural law structures that are more responsive to rights protection and legal consistency.