Preventing Duplication of Civil Cases: Integrating Res Sub Judice into Indonesian Procedural Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indonesian civil procedure law does not yet regulate the res sub judice doctrine, which risks leading to duplicate lawsuits and different decisions because the HIR and RBg only contain provisions on relative and absolute competence. To analyze the comparative regulation of sub judice and res sub judice and to offer an ideal concept for their application in Indonesian civil procedure law. It offers a normative framework to fill legal gaps and prevent forum shopping, an issue that has not been studied in depth before. This study conducts normative legal research using a statutory, conceptual, and comparative approach, referencing practices in India, the UK, Canada, and Kenya. The principle of sub judice protects the judiciary from external influence, while the principle of res sub judice ensures efficiency and legal certainty by prohibiting the double examination of the same dispute. Its integration into Indonesian civil procedure law is necessary through the judge's obligation to declare a double lawsuit inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk verklaard) and the plaintiff's obligation to attach a statement confirming the absence of a similar lawsuit to maintain legal certainty and support the principles of fast, simple, and low-cost justice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".