Verstek's Decision Is A Decision Without The Defendant's Presence, How Come?

Verstek's decision is (AI Generatorfreepic)

YOGYAKARTA - Verstek's decision was a court decision handed down when the defendant was not present at the trial even though he had been legally summoned. This term was again widely discussed by the public after the divorce case of footballer Pratama Arhan and Azizah.

Interestingly, Arhan and Azizah's divorce had stolen attention because the trial process took place without the presence of one of the parties. This makes many people curious about the term verstek decision which then appears in many reports.

Reporting from the DKJN website of the Ministry of Finance, the verstek decision occurred when the court's decision was handed down when the defendant did not come to the trial for no valid reason, even though he had been officially summoned.

Please note, this decision is an exception from the normal trial because the defendant is considered deliberately absent. In this condition, the defendant is considered negligent in attending the trial.

As a result, all the arguments or reasons submitted by the plaintiff seem to be immediately acknowledged by the defendant. Verstek's decision is usually handed down at the first trial if the defendant does not attend the trial at all.

Many consider a decision like this to be unfair to the defendant, because the case was decided without him being present to defend himself. However, the trial also cannot continue without legal certainty so the judge still needs to make a decision.

Even so, it does not mean that the defendant has lost his full right. The law still provides an opportunity for the defendant to fight the decision. How?

Also read the article discussing the Stages of Impeachment of Regional Heads in Indonesia and the Mechanism

Actually, the defendant who was sentenced to a verstek decision actually still has the right to fight, or what is commonly called a verzet.

Reporting from the Tigaraksa Religious Court page, this right is regulated in Article 129 HIR/153 RBg, with different deadlines depending on the condition of the decision notification. Here are some important points:

With this mechanism of resistance, the defendant still has room to defend himself in court. This aims to maintain justice, both for plaintiffs who demand certainty, as well as for defendants who wish to express their defense.

In the divorce trial of Primary Arhan against Azizah, the court had legally summoned both parties. However, Azizah as the defendant was not present at the first trial for no apparent reason.

In that condition, the judge has the right to impose a verstek decision. This means that the argument for the lawsuit filed by Arhan is considered to be complete, because there is no defense from Azizah's side. Thus, the trial was still immediately decided without the defendant's presence.

However, that does not mean that Azizah has lost his rights completely, because he can still fight (verzet) within a certain period of time. For example, if Azizah is told directly about the verdict, then he has 14 days to file a fight.

Then Azizah filed a fight, so the divorce case will be re-examined normally. The judge will reassess Arhan's lawsuit, this time with the presence and answer from Azizah's side.

On the other hand, if Azizah does not use the right to resistance, then the verstek decision will still apply and their marriage officially ends according to the judge's decision.

In addition to discussing verstek decisions, follow other interesting articles on VOI, to get updated news, don't forget to follow and monitor all of our social media accounts!