THE DYNAMICS OF COURT DECISIONS IN THE CIVIL DISPUTE OVER GOLD
SALES BETWEEN PT ANTAM TBK AND BUDI SAID AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE APPLICATION OF CIVIL LAW IN INDONESIA
Martha Hasanah Rustam1*.
Duwi Handoko2.
Afrinaldy Rustam3.
Muhammad April4 Fakultas Syari'ah dan Hukum.
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau.
Indonesia Fakultas Hukum.
Universitas Persada Bunda Indonesia.
Indonesia Fakultas Ekonomi dan Ilmu Sosial.
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau.
Indonesia *Korespondensi Email: marthahasanahrustam19@gmail.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received .
February 2.
Revised .
March 2.
Accepted .
April 2.
KEYWORDS breach of contract.
corporate liability.
judicial review.
gold sales dispute This is an open access article under the CCAe BY-SA license ABSTRACT This study examines the litigation trajectory of the gold sales dispute between PT Aneka Tambang Tbk (Anta.
and Budi Said across four judicial levels in Indonesia: the Surabaya District Court, the Surabaya High Court, the Supreme Court at the cassation stage, and two rounds of judicial review (Peninjauan Kembal.
Employing a normative legal research design, the analysis draws on statutory provisions, court decisions, and scholarly literature to assess the application of tort elements in sale contracts.
Findings reveal divergent interpretations of tort elements .
nlawful act, loss, causation, and faul.
at each judicial tier: the District Court and the Supreme Court .
assation and first judicial revie.
affirmed the presence of tort, obligating Antam to deliver 1.
136 tons of gold or pay compensation.
the High Court rejected the claim entirely.
and the second judicial review reversed AntamAos obligation based on new criminal findings against Budi Said.
These oscillating verdicts generate legal uncertainty, blur the line between breach of contract and tort, and underscore the need for harmonization between civil and criminal proceedings and the standardization of tort evidentiary rules.
Recommended measures include issuing consistent Supreme Court jurisprudential guidelines, clarifying corporate authority in contractual engagements, and strengthening internal corporate oversight.
INTRODUCTION
Civil disputes arising from sales agreements frequently lead to breaches of contract that undermine partiesAo trust and may precipitate protracted litigation.
A breach of contract .
encompasses non-performance, negligent performance, or injury to promise, whether deliberate or due to negligence (Mahfuzh et al.
, 2.
Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, hereinafter AiCivil CodeA.
prescribes four essential elements for a valid contract: mutual consent of the parties, legal capacity, a definite object, and a lawful cause.
Nevertheless, in practice many contracts fail to satisfy these requirements before the courts (Bagaskara & Priyanto, 2.
Consequently, the aggrieved party may claim compensation for costs, losses, and interest under Article 1243 of the Civil Code, provided the defaulting party remains in default after a declaration of non-performance (Warta et al.
, 2.
Liability for breach of contract may attach to either natural persons or legal entities.
Where an individual is in default, liability rests directly on the debtor, such that any obligation to pay damages or compensation emanates from the debtorAos personal assets, in accordance with the principles of fault-based liability and contractual certainty (Fazriah, 2.
Article 1238 of the Civil Code states that a debtor is deemed in default after receiving a formal notice or equivalent instrument, and is liable only for costs, losses, and interest directly caused by the breach.
The debtorAos civil liability is absolute and prioritizes the restitution of the creditorAos rights through damages and specific performance (Fahlevi et al.
By contrast, where a legal entityAisuch as a limited liability companyAiis in breach, liability ordinarily lies with the entity as a separate legal person, limited to the companyAos assets and not extending to the personal assets of its officers or shareholders (Putri & Sulastri, 2.
However, in exceptional circumstancesAisuch as gross negligence, abuse of authority, or unlawful acts by the board of directorsAia court may hold individual officers personally liable for resulting losses (Ratuwala et al.
Furthermore, where the breach transcends ordinary non-performanceAievidenced by bad faith or gross negligenceAithe act may qualify as a tort under Article 1365 of the Civil Code, entitling the creditor to additional compensation for moral or non-pecuniary damages (Elia et al.
, 2.
This phenomenon demonstrates that not all sales disputesAisuch as those involving gold bullionAiare decided solely on the basis of breach.
For instance, in the Surabaya District Court decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby, the JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
165 panel of judges unequivocally found that the elements of a tortAiunlawful act, damages, and causationAi were satisfied, and therefore the claim was characterized not merely as a breach but as a tortious claim for damages that harmed the plaintiff.
The case concerned the sale of 1,136 kilograms of gold between PT Aneka Tambang Tbk (AiPT AntamA.
and entrepreneur Budi Said.
The dispute originated in 2018 when Budi Said alleged that PT Antam failed to deliver the 1,136 kg of gold he had paid for.
He sued Antam in the Surabaya District Court and prevailed, but the decision was reversed on appeal by the East Java High Court.
On cassation, the Supreme Court granted Budi SaidAos petition and ordered Antam to deliver the gold.
However, following new evidence of alleged corruption in the gold transaction, the Supreme Court accepted AntamAos second judicial review (Peninjauan Kembal.
in 2025 .
com, 2.
As a result, the Supreme Court granted the second review, quashed the first review judgment, reheard the case, and dismissed the claim, thereby relieving Antam of any obligation to deliver the 1,136 kg of gold to Budi Said.
AntamAos counsel stated that there is now Aino further obligation to deliver the 1,136 kg of gold to Budi SaidAn .
com, 2.
Concurrently.
Budi Said was sentenced to 15 yearsAo imprisonment by the Central Jakarta Corruption Court for corruption in manipulating the purchase of AntamAos gold, causing state losses of approximately IDR 1.
1 trillion .
com, 2.
, a sentence later increased to 16 years by the Jakarta High Court .
co, 2.
This dualAicivil and criminalAicase underscores the complexity of corporate contractual liability and law enforcement in Indonesia.
Despite involving a major state-owned enterprise and significant economic and legal consequences, there remains a paucity of in-depth academic analysis concerning the multi-tiered litigation of the Antam v.
Budi Said case.
Indonesian civil law literature tends to focus on general contractual principles and civil liability, but has yet to address the judiciaryAos role in concrete disputes of this nature.
This represents a significant research gap, as the outcomes at the district, high, supreme, and review levels reflect how civil law principles are applied in state-owned corporate disputes.
Accordingly, this study aims to analyze the litigation trajectory of PT Antam Tbk v.
Budi Said through the district court, high court.
Supreme Court, and judicial review stages, and its implications for the application of Indonesian civil law.
A thorough analysis of these rulings is expected to offer new insights into state-owned corporate accountability within the national civil law framework.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study employs a normative legal research approach, which relies on the examination of written legal norms as contained in legislation, doctrine, and judicial decisions.
This approach is appropriate given the primary objective of this study: to scrutinize corporate civil liability for torts in the gold sales dispute between Budi Said and PT Antam, based on Surabaya District Court Decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby and subsequent decisions at the appellate, cassation, and judicial review levels.
The data used are secondary sources, comprising primary, secondary, and tertiary legal Primary legal materials include relevant statutory provisions such as Articles 1320, 1243, 1365, and 1367 of the Civil Code, as well as official copies of the judicial decisions under review.
Secondary legal materials consist of academic literature, journal articles, expert opinions, and legal news coverage providing factual developments of the case.
Tertiary legal materials include legal dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other supporting references.
Legal materials were collected through library research, accessing national and international legal databases, and retrieving court decisions via the Directory of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and other official sources.
The analysis of legal materials is qualitative, utilizing deductive legal reasoning to assess the legal validity and fulfilment of tort elements in the case.
A systematic approach identifies the relationships among factual findings, judicial reasoning, and applicable legal norms, while a conceptual approach evaluates whether the courtAos decisions reflect principles of corporate civil liability consistent with fairness, legal certainty, and protection of the aggrieved The ultimate aim of this methodology is to reconstruct a deeper understanding of the legal parameters used in evaluating corporate tort liability and to assess the significance of these judicial decisions for the development of Indonesian civil law, particularly concerning state-owned enterprises engaged in high-value commodity transactions such as gold bullion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Amendments to the Judgment and Legal Reasoning in Surabaya District Court Decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby and Subsequent Appellate.
Cassation, and Judicial Review Decisions A tort .
erbuatan melawan hukum or "onrechtmatige daad") is a source of obligation arising directly from statute when a personAos conduct violates legal norms.
Articles 1365 and 1366 of the Civil Code set out the duty to compensate for loss resulting from wrongful acts, whether through intent or JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
166 negligence.
According to Gunawan Widjaya and Kartini Muljadi, the elements of a tort are: .
an unlawful act, .
the occurrence of damage to another party, and .
fault or negligence on the part of the tortfeasor(Amalia, 2.
Tort Elements in Surabaya District Court Decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby In the Surabaya District Court decision dated 13 January 2021.
Budi Said sued PT Aneka Tambang Tbk ("Antam") and certain employees for tortious conduct .
id, 2021.
The alleged torts included unauthorized discounts outside AntamAos official pricing mechanism, involvement of a nonAcemployee intermediary (Eksi Anggraen.
, and incomplete invoices indicating bad faith by Antam.
The court observed that the "discount price" information provided by Eksi Anggraeni and later confirmed by Antam employees (Defendants IIAeIV) directly contravened the companyAos internal policy against ad hoc discounts.
Although there was no evidence of invoice forgery, the incomplete invoices demonstrated administrative negligence by Antam staff.
The participation of Endang Kumoro (Defendant II) and Misdianto (Defendant .
in facilitating these unauthorized discountsAidespite knowledge of the internal prohibitionAiestablished the element of an unlawful act.
This aligns with the broad definition of onrechtmatige daad as articulated in Hoge Raad 1919, which considers any violation of anotherAos subjective rights and oneAos own legal duties as a tortious act (Iskandar & Adlhiyati, 2.
The damage element was satisfied as Budi Said did not receive the 1,136 kg of gold he had fully paid for.
The court relied on the transaction record and criminal case judgments No.
2658/PID.
B/2019/PN.
SBY (Surabaya District Cour.
No.
211/PID/2020/PT.
SBY (East Java High Cour.
, and Supreme Court No.
600K/PID/2020 to confirm the shortfall.
Accordingly, the court ordered Antam to deliver 1,136 kg of gold or pay material damages amounting to IDR 817,465,600,000, adjusted to AntamAos official gold price fluctuations (Iskandar & Adlhiyati, 2.
Causation was established because the plaintiffAos loss directly resulted from the defendantsAo tortious acts.
Article 1365 requires a causal link between the wrongful act and the damage.
Here, the unauthorized discounts and administrative omissions in invoicing (Exhibits P-416 to P-.
, confirmed by Defendants IIAeIV, were the direct cause of the non-delivery of the gold.
Applying the conditio sine qua non test, the court held that without the erroneous price confirmation and invoice deficiencies, the 1,136 kg shortfall would not have occurred (Iskandar & Adlhiyati, 2.
Fault was proven since Eksi Anggraeni (Defendant V) intentionally communicated an incorrect discount price, creating false reliance, and Antam employees (Defendants II, i.
IV, and VI) negligently confirmed and approved the discount contrary to internal policy.
Moreover.
Surabaya District Court criminal decision No.
2658/PID.
B/2019/PN.
SBY found Endang Kumoro.
Misdianto, and Ahmad Purwanto guilty of fraud, reinforcing evidence of fault under Article 1365.
Thus, both the willful misconduct of Eksi and the administrative negligence of Antam staff satisfied the fault element (Iskandar & Adlhiyati, 2.
Overall, the district court decision coherently applied the four tort elementsAiunlawful act, damage, causation, and faultAias required by Article 1365.
Elements of an Unlawful Act under Surabaya High Court Decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby The dispute over the sale of Antam gold between Budi Said and PT Aneka Tambang Tbk was adjudicated through litigation.
Although Budi Said, as the purchaser, sought extraordinarily large damagesAiamounting to trillions of rupiahAian Economic Analysis of Law (EAL) perspective held that such a claim was manifestly excessive and ought to be adjusted to ensure fairness for both parties.
EAL
emphasizes that legal remedies must account for utility, value, and efficiency, and should not impose a disproportionate burden on business actors .
n this case, a state-owned enterpris.
(Wahyuni, 2.
Upon reviewing the verdict of the Surabaya District Court in Case No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby, the matter was classified as an unlawful act .
erbuatan melawan hukumAiPMH), rather than a breach of contract .
In its dispositive section, the panel of judges expressly found that the Plaintiff (Budi Sai.
had proved the Defendants (PT Anta.
committed an unlawful act causing him loss.
Accordingly, the court granted part of the PlaintiffAos claim, ordering the Defendant either to deliver the contracted gold or pay monetary compensation as damages .
id, 2021.
The legal basis for this classification rests on the finding that no valid agreement meeting the requisite contractual elements existed.
rather, the DefendantsAo conductAisuch as internal procedural violations and forgeryAi constituted a tortious act that inflicted loss on the Plaintiff.
This conclusion is explicitly reflected in the judgmentAos operative clause, which characterizes the DefendantsAo conduct as an unlawful act.
However, this finding was subsequently overturned by the Surabaya High Court in Decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby, which corrected the District CourtAos ruling in the same matter.
JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
167 Pursuant to Surabaya High Court Decision No.
371/Pdt/2021/PT SBY dated 19 August 2021, the appellate panel reversed the Surabaya District CourtAos Judgment No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN Sby and, on its own motion, ruled that Budi SaidAos entire claim be dismissed .
id, 2021.
In other words, the High Court did not uphold any finding of unlawful act (PMH) to the detriment of the Plaintiff.
By contrast, the District Court had previously held that Defendants I through VAiincluding PT Aneka Tambang Tbk and the individuals Endang Kumoro.
Misdianto.
Ahmad Purwanto, and Eksi AnggraeniAiAiwere guilty of committing an unlawful actAn in the gold-sale transaction.
On appeal, however, the panel concluded that neither PT Antam nor the individual respondents had proven any PMH in the Antam gold sale.
The High Court therefore dismissed the PlaintiffAos suit in its entirety and implicitly found that no PMH had been committed by the Defendants.
Accordingly, the High Court affirmed that the requisite elements of a tortAiunlawful act, fault, damage, and causationAiwere not satisfied in Budi SaidAos case, rendering his claim unfounded.
Elements of an Unlawful Act under Supreme Court Cassation Decision No.
1666 K/Pdt/2022 Pursuant to Supreme Court Cassation Decision No.
1666 K/Pdt/2022 dated June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that all elements of an unlawful act .
erbuatan melawan huku.
were Wrongful Act (Tor.
: The actions of the ANTAM employees constituted an unlawful actAinamely.
Fault (Kesalaha.
: Liability was imputed to the company itself under Article 1367 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdat.
by virtue of the employerAos responsibility for its Actual Loss (Kerugian Nyat.
: Tangible damages were demonstrated in accordance with the Surabaya District CourtAos damage calculations.
Causation (Hubungan Kausa.
: A clear causal link between the fraudulent conduct and the PlaintiffAos loss was established.
These findings align with the District CourtAos reasoning, which had determined that Defendants IAe V committed an unlawful act .
id, 2.
Accordingly, at the cassation level, the Supreme Court confirmed that PT Antam and its employees were jointly and severally liable for material damages (Haetami et al.
, 2.
A comparative analysis of the four elements under Article 1365 of the Civil Code shows consistency between the District Court and the Supreme Court in recognizing wrongdoing, loss, causation, and fault, whereas the Surabaya High CourtAos decision diverged significantly.
The District Court and Supreme Court judgments are supported by transactional evidence and established principles of corporate liability, while the appellate court focused more narrowly on administrative contract formalities and the individual status of the actors.
Therefore, the fulfillment of the unlawful-act elements is more convincingly upheld by the District Court and the Supreme Court, whereas the High CourtAos view appears less aligned with prevailing legal norms of liability.
Elements of an Unlawful Act under the First Judicial Review Decision No.
554 PK/PDT/2023
(PK.
Pursuant to the operative clause of the Supreme CourtAos First Judicial Review (PK.
Decision dated 12 September 2023, the Court dismissed PT Aneka Tambang TbkAos (AiAntamA.
application for judicial review, ordering Antam to bear the litigation costs at all levels of the judiciary, which in the PK proceedings amounted to IDR 2,500,000 .
wo million five hundred thousand rupia.
id, 2.
Consequently, the cassation judgment requiring Antam to deliver 1.
136 kg of gold to Budi Said remained in force.
Antam is therefore obliged to compensate Budi Said in gold .
pproximately IDR 1.
15 trillion at prevailing rate.
or its monetary equivalent.
In this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that the sale and purchase agreement for seven tonnes of gold between Antam and Budi Said was valid and binding, notwithstanding that the discount transaction had been executed by an unauthorized officer of Antam .
tv, 2.
In other words, the Supreme Court in PK1 did not annul AntamAos contractual obligations, despite suspicions of manipulation, and enforced the earlier court order in full.
Notably, the Supreme CourtAos PK1 decision does not address the tortious (PMH) aspects Rather, it upholds AntamAos contractual duties without finding any legal defects in the agreement.
The Court rejected AntamAos review petition and maintained the directive to deliver the gold based on the contractAos evidence and AntamAos own admission of short delivery.
Thus, the Supreme Court prioritized JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
168 contractual certainty and refused to set aside the prior judgments merely because an unauthorized individual had executed the discount transaction .
tv, 2.
Elements of an Unlawful Act under the Supreme CourtAos Second Judicial Review Decision No.
815 PK/PDT/2024 (PK.
The operative clause of PK2, rendered on March 11, 2025, provides: AiPK granted.
PK1 annulled.
case remanded.
claim dismissedAn .
id, 2.
By this new ruling.
Antam is no longer obliged to deliver 1.
136 kg of gold to Budi Said.
PK2 thus rejects Budi SaidAos claim following a full reexamination.
The pivotal basis for PK2 was the emergence of new criminal facts: Budi Said was conclusively found guilty of orchestrating a corrupt scheme in the Antam gold sale.
The Central Jakarta Corruption Court sentenced him to 15 yearsAo imprisonment .
ncreased to 16 year.
for manipulating Antam gold These criminal findingsAithat no lawful purchase of 1.
136 kg had occurredAiprovided Antam with grounds to have the earlier judgment overturned.
Although the Supreme CourtAos PK2 judgment does not expressly label Budi SaidAos conduct as a Aiperbuatan melawan hukum,An it effectively nullifies AntamAos delivery obligation on account of these new criminal facts .
com, 2.
In practice.
PK2 annuls the underlying contract.
AntamAos counsel commented that the bribe-giving and -receiving constituted an unlawful act (PMH), rendering the sale agreement legally void .
com, 2.
While the Supreme Court did not formally invoke the term Aiperbuatan melawan hukum,An the outcome aligns with the concept of PMH: the contract is automatically void and restitution In short, whereas PK1 had reinforced the contract without addressing any unlawful act.
PK2Ai supported by criminal findingsAiimplicitly treats the transaction as void ab initio due to Budi SaidAos wrongful conduct .
com, 2.
Legal Implications of the Dynamics of Surabaya District Court Decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby and Its Subsequent Appellate.
Cassation, and Judicial Review Rulings on Indonesian Civil Practice The Surabaya District CourtAos Decision No.
158/Pdt.
G/2020/PN.
Sby, rendered on 13 January 2021, held that PT Aneka Tambang Tbk (AiANTAMA.
was obliged to deliver the shortfall of 1.
136 tons of gold to Budi Said or, alternatively, to pay the equivalent value in money.
However, on appeal and at cassation the outcomes fluctuated dramatically: the Supreme Court initially affirmed Budi SaidAos victory.
the first judicial review (PK-.
in September 2023 likewise upheld his claim.
but the second judicial review (PK-.
in March 2025 ultimately set aside all prior decisions and dismissed the suit.
Such a series of reversals has generated significant legal uncertainty for civil and commercial practice in Indonesia, leaving judges, practitioners, and private parties uncertain whether ANTAMAos conduct should be treated as contractual breach or tort, and casting doubt on the protection afforded to contractual rights and good faith in business relations.
In the gold-sale dispute between PT Antam Tbk and Budi Said illustrate a highly complex jurisprudential dynamic, summarised as follows:
Surabaya District Court .
/Pdt.
G/2.
Operative Part: Partially granted Budi SaidAos claim, finding that PT Antam had committed an unlawful act .
erbuatan melawan huku.
Reasoning: The panel held that the defendantAos internal procedural breaches and forgery amounted to a tortious act causing loss to the plaintiff.
Surabaya High Court .
/PDT/2.
: Operative Part: Overturned the District CourtAos decision and dismissed the entire suit.
Reasoning: The appellate bench concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove either a valid representative authority or actionable wrongdoing.
Supreme Court .
6 K/Pdt/2.
: Operative Part: Allowed Budi SaidAos cassation appeal and restored the District CourtAos judgment.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidentiary weight regarding the unlawful act.
First Judicial Review (PK-.
filed by PT Antam: Operative Part: Rejected.
Reasoning: Confirmed that the Supreme CourtAos cassation reasoning was legally sound and procedurally correct.
Second Judicial Review (PK-.
filed by PT Antam:
Operative Part: Granted, thereby annulling the PK-1 ruling.
Reasoning: The Court of Review accepted new prima facie evidence suggesting that internal authorisation did exist and that the standard operating procedures were not breached.
JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
169 These successive reversals demonstrate that at each level of adjudication, the bench diverged in its interpretation of:
Internal Authorisation vs.
Valid Representation Evidentiary Weight in Tort (Unlawful Ac.
Claims Validity of Corporate SOPs in Establishing Corporate Liability Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code provides that Aiany unlawful act which causes harm to another person obliges the actor to make good the loss.
An The requisite elements of a tort (PMH) are:
Unlawful act .
iolation of either a subjective or objective righ.
Damage .
oss suffered by the claiman.
Fault .
on the part of the actor Causation .
causal link between the act and the damag.
In the ANTAMAeBudi Said case, the Surabaya District Court (PN Surabay.
found all four elements satisfied: ANTAMAos conduct infringed Budi SaidAos legal right under their goldAcsale contract.
caused material loss .
136 kg of gol.
and immaterial harm.
and it was committed through negligence, thereby triggering liability for damages.
Academic studies confirm that AiPT AntamAos conduct fulfilled the elements of unlawful act, damage, fault, and causation as stipulated in Article 1365 of the Civil Code.
An Moreover.
PN Surabaya relied upon the Dutch Hoge Raad decision of 1919 to adopt a broader definition of tort: ANTAM was held to have breached Budi SaidAos rights and obligations as a consumer (Iskandar & Adlhiyati, 2.
However, the conflicting outcomes at the appellate and cassation levels illustrate the uncertainty in applying the tort elements.
On one hand, the District Court judges deemed ANTAMAos employees .
ncluding Eksi Anggraeni et al.
) to have acted in bad faith, thus binding ANTAM in tort.
On the other hand, subsequent appellate and cassation courts acquitted ANTAM on a contractual basis .
inding that contractual obligations had been fulfilled and no negligence occurre.
This inconsistency blurs the doctrine of tort in the context of sale contracts.
Civil practitioners and legal scholars emphasize that such vacillating judgments undermine legal certainty: judges lack a strong precedent to decide when a breach of contract also constitutes a tort, and when it must be addressed purely under contract law.
The practical implication is that lawyers must now carefully distinguish ordinary breachAcofAccontract claims from tort this juridical uncertainty may give rise to inefficiency and increased litigation costs, as parties test the boundaries of Article 1365Aos elements.
Principle of pacta sunt servanda.
Article 1338 of the Civil Code affirms that Aiall contracts legally entered into bind the parties and must be performed in good faith.
An The ANTAMAeBudi Said dispute tests this principle.
Budi, as a Aigood-faithAn purchaser, fully paid for the gold sale promise, whereas ANTAM .
hrough its employee.
failed to perform.
From a commercial standpoint, the inconsistent rulings generate concerns over contractual certainty.
If the District Court treated employeesAo promises as binding ANTAM .
hus upholding the sellerAos goodAcfaith obligatio.
, but the Supreme Court ultimately exonerated ANTAM, a contract once deemed valid becomes uncertain.
In business practice, this means companies must clarify employee authority and incorporate protective clauses .
, force majeure or delegation limit.
in their contracts.
Consequently, businesses are forced to anticipate potential tort claims outside formal contract frameworks.
Corporate liability perspective.
The District CourtAos initial ruling implied that ANTAM must answer for its employeesAo fraud (Eks.
as part of the corporate hierarchy, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
Under Law No.
40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies (UUPT), directors and commissioners must act in the corporationAos interest.
if contract non-performance arises from an organAos negligence .
n employee exceeding authorit.
, the company may be held liable.
These fluctuating judgments underscore that, in Indonesian practice, corporations must exercise greater caution in delegating authority: internal regulations and corporateAcgovernance systems should be fortified so that employeesAo promises do not expose the company to onrechtmatige daad .
Good-faith purchaser protection.
Budi Said, who acted honestly and fulfilled his payment obligation, ought to receive legal protection and compensation .
, under Article 4 of Law No.
8 of 1999 on Consumer Protectio.
With the reversal of decisions, consumer protection becomes opaque.
Yet the good-faith principle is explicitly enshrined in Article 1338 of the Civil Code, which requires contract performance Aiin good faith.
An Inconsistent judicial reversals can weaken business actorsAo good faith, given the unpredictability of liability.
Ultimately, these conflicting decisions shake the legalAccertainty principle in business contracts: if contract enforcement or tort claims may end differently at each judicial level, businesses and investors struggle to devise safe contracting strategies.
The ANTAMAeBudi Said saga reveals that a hybrid approachAistraddling breach of contract and tortAiremains controversial.
Precedents and doctrine have shifted interpretations of tort elements: PN JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
170 Surabaya adopted a broad view .
iting the 1919 Hoge Raa.
, whereas the Supreme Court narrowed As a result.
Aipseudo-precedentsAn emerge: although the final Supreme Court ruling is conclusive, prior reversals sow doctrinal uncertainty.
For contractual business practice, this drives a more conservative approach: obligations must be drafted with maximum clarity, risk allocation spelled out explicitly, and good-faith commitments firmly agreed, so as to avoid litigative controversies akin to the ANTAMAeBudi Said case.
Significant legal implications include:
Erosion of Legal Certainty: Dynamic reversals across five judicial stages .
ncluding two applications for judicial revie.
create perceptions of inconsistency in civilAclaw judgments, undermining public trust in the judiciary.
Inconsistent Breach-of-Contract Proof Standards: Divergent interpretations of transactional evidence, invoices, and internal documents show that tort proof standards lack uniformity in commercial litigation.
Fragmented Corporate Liability: While PN Surabaya and the Supreme CourtAos first cassation upheld vicarious liability, the second judicialAcreview decision exonerated the corporation, generating uncertainty regarding corporate responsibility for subordinatesAo acts, especially where SOPs are unclear or ambiguous.
These implications underscore the need for Indonesian civil law reform in:
Standardizing tortAcofAccontract proof in modern contracts.
Providing explicit guidelines on corporate liability.
Clarifying the role and weight of corporate SOPs in assessing the validity of corporate officersAo Long-term and direct impacts:
Business sector: Particularly state-owned and commodity companies will exercise greater care in drafting and enforcing internal SOPs, recognizing that ambiguous or weakly supervised SOPs can incur major legal risks.
Commercial contracts: Companies will be driven to produce more detailed written agreements, delineating personal versus institutional liability and maintaining comprehensive electronic records, boosting demand for internal audit and legal-compliance services.
Investors and consumers: The Supreme CourtAos final ruling against Budi Said in the second judicial review raises concerns over the efficacy of legal protection for consumers transacting with large corporations, fostering fears that companies may exploit internal-structural weaknesses to evade obligations.
Positive outcomes: this case may catalyze:
Internal corporate policy reform.
Strengthened prudential standards in trading strategic goods.
Heightened legal awareness among investors and market participants.
Juridical and Theoretical Implications of Adjudicating Civil Disputes Involving Corruption The juridical implications of corruptionAos involvement in civil disputes are highly complex.
principle, a contract is valid only if it satisfies the statutory requirements for a binding agreement (Article 1320 of the Civil Cod.
, including the elements of good faith and a lawful object.
Where corruption is clandestinely embedded in the contracting process, the existence of an unlawful act .
or example, fraud or briber.
may vitiate the contractAos validity.
An agreement procured by deceit, falsehood, or fraud may be deemed void on the ground of prohibited causation (Aicausa turpiA.
(Rahman et al.
, 2.
Moreover, several judicial decisions hold that a court must probe the factual circumstances in even when documentary evidence is scarce, a diligent judge will uncover defects of will arising from bad faith in the formation of the agreement (Sugiastuti et al.
, 2.
Consequently, if a contract is rescinded on account of corruption, the injured party may claim restitution under the general principles of civil liability .
estitutio in integru.
, pursuant to the doctrine protecting those harmed by unlawful acts (Gaol, 2.
In essence, corruption tainting an agreement undermines the pacta sunt servanda principle and may open the door to contract annulment and damages.
The Aiclean handsAn doctrine dictates that a litigant must approach the court free of any illegal conduct related to the dispute.
Although Indonesian civil procedure does not explicitly codify this doctrine, the requirement of good faith (Article 1338.
Civil Cod.
imposes a duty of honesty and fairness on the Should a claimant or defendant be implicated in corrupt acts concerning the contract, extending judicial protection to that party would contravene substantive justice.
The Supreme Court consistently JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
171 distinguishes a simple breach of contract made in good faith .
purely civil matte.
from one born of bad faith .
, which falls within the realm of criminal fraud (Gaol, 2.
Thus, a party with Aiunclean handsAnAifor example, one who has bribed or defraudedAimay not enforce the contract or recover damages in civil proceedings.
For instance, proof of deceit or false representation underlying an agreement constitutes grounds for annulment due to the contractAos vitiation.
In practice, a civil judge may invoke the spirit of the clean hands doctrine by dismissing claims of a party engaged in unlawful conduct, thereby safeguarding the judiciaryAos legitimacy (Rahman et al.
, 2.
this context, civil enforcement of legal principles is carried out by the general courts as organs of judicial authority (Handoko, 2.
From a theoretical standpoint, a judicial review (Peninjauan Kembali.
PK) at the Supreme Court is an extraordinary remedy designed to correct judgments deemed legally erroneous.
Although strictly regulated.
PK allows for the alteration of final decisions.
In high-profile civil disputes involving corporate corruption, filing for PK may generate legal uncertainty, as an ostensibly final judgment remains susceptible to revision.
Nevertheless, the use of extraordinary remedies like PK aligns with the characterization of corruption as an extraordinary crime, warranting unconventional enforcement Anti-corruption enforcement must employ extraordinary methods, reflecting the systematic and pervasive nature of corrupt practices that harm the state and impoverish the populace.
It is for this reason corruption has been classified as an extraordinary crime (Handoko, 2.
Juridically, the Supreme Court seeks substantive truth by thoroughly examining facts and law in a PK proceeding, yet this pursuit may conflict with the principle of legal certainty for parties who consider the matter finally resolved.
Hence, a judge capable of uncovering latent defects in agreement through comprehensive fact-finding is indispensable (Sugiastuti et al.
, 2.
Conversely, corporations often emphasize the sanctity of contractual rights and adherence to agreed terms.
In light of these doctrines.
PK must be balanced against the need for legal certainty so as not to become a perpetual avenue for If the Supreme Court repeatedly grants PK, especially for well-resourced corporations, public confidence in legal certainty may be eroded (Gaol, 2.
Harmonizing civil and criminal adjudication is crucial to avert conflicting judgments and preserve public trust.
When identical facts are litigated in both spheresAifor instance, an executive absolved of civil breach while simultaneously criminally prosecuted for corruption over the same transactionAia legal paradox arises.
The clean-hands requirement in civil cases must cohere with the primum nil nocere principle in criminal law.
In corporate contexts, an agreement deemed valid and entered in good faith in civil court may nonetheless trigger criminal corruption charges, generating inconsistency.
Therefore, a collaborative civilAecriminal framework is essential to ensure coherent rulings.
Such harmonization should respect legality and certainty: civil analysis of subjective intent should inform criminal proceedings, while criminal authorities should give due regard to civil judgments.
This integrated approach upholds the credibility of the legal system and guards against ambiguity that undermines public confidence (Gaol.
In sum, addressing civil disputes tainted by corruption demands rigorous juridical scrutiny and a theoretically coherent methodology.
Corruption embedded in a contract not only weakens its binding force but also nullifies any legal claim by a bad-faith party.
The doctrines of clean hands and good faith must underpin judicial assessment of contract validity and damage claims, preventing civil procedure from serving as a haven for corrupt actors.
Simultaneously, the Supreme Court must strike a balance between uncovering material truth through PK and upholding legal certainty.
Finally, seamless collaboration between civil and criminal forums is indispensable to deliver effective, fair justice in these multifaceted CONCLUSION The analysis of the succession of judgmentsAifrom the Surabaya District Court through two levels of judicial reviewAireveals shifting interpretations of the elements of an unlawful act (PMH) in the PT Antam gold-sale transaction.
Both the District Court and the Supreme Court .
n cassatio.
confirmed that all four elements of PMHAiwrongful act, loss, causation, and faultAiwere established, thereby obliging PT Antam to deliver the gold or pay compensatory damages.
In contrast, the High Court on appeal dismissed the claim, focusing on administrative formalities and the personal status of the individual involved.
The first judicial review (Peninjauan Kembali I) upheld Budi SaidAos victory by rejecting PT AntamAos application, whereas the second review (Peninjauan Kembali II) reversed AntamAos liability in light of Budi SaidAos criminal corruption conviction.
These developments underscore the critical importance of authentic evidence, the integration of criminal and civil procedures, and consistent legal interpretation in high-stakes corporate disputes.
JURNAL SAINTIFIK (Multi Science Journa.
Vol.
23 No.
2 May 2025 page: 165 Ae .
172 The PT Antam Tbk v.
Budi Said litigation exemplifies the complexity and legal uncertainty afflicting Indonesian civil law when judgments vacillateAifrom trial court to appellate court, to the Supreme Court, and through two rounds of judicial review.
Such reversals reflect a troubling inconsistency in applying the PMH doctrine, corporate liability, and protection of bona fide parties.
This unpredictability undermines legal certainty and justice in commercial transactions.
The divergent jurisprudence also highlights the absence of a uniform evidentiary standard and inconsistent application of corporate standard operating procedures (SOP.
in assessing corporate wrongdoing, blurring the line between contractual breach and tortious liability in civil practice.
Civil disputes tainted by corruption raise substantial doctrinal and practical challenges, particularly concerning contract validity and the duty of good faith.
Corruption tainting an agreement can void its binding force and open the door to tort claims for damages.
The clean-hands doctrine and the duty of candour are therefore pivotal in judicial assessment.
Yet, multiple successive reviews exacerbate legal uncertainty.
Moreover, misalignment between criminal and civil processes risks contradictory Accordingly, cross-forum harmonization is essential to uphold justice and maintain public Recommendations Strengthen Internal Controls and Procedural Compliance Implement an independent and transparent audit system for all major transactions, including invoice verification and discount approvals.
Conduct regular, intensive training for employees and periodic dissemination of official discount Optimize data harmonization across administrative records.
IT systems, and physical archives to prevent oversight.
Enhance cooperation with law-enforcement agencies to ensure administrative findings lead promptly to legal action.
Promote public transparency and integrity reporting to bolster corporate accountability and foster an ethics-driven compliance culture.
Legal Reforms to Reduce Civil-Law Uncertainty Standardize evidentiary requirements for PMH and issue explicit guidelines on corporate liability through civil-code amendments or interpretive regulations.
The Supreme Court should publish binding jurisprudential guidelines to align interpretations across court levels.
Corporations must clarify SOPs and delineate employee authority while reinforcing internal oversight to close legal loopholes.
Legal practitioners should exercise heightened diligence distinguishing breach-of-contract claims from tort claims, drafting contracts with clear, preventive provisions.
Regulators should enhance protection of bona fide commercial parties to preserve public trust in legal certainty and fairness.
Harmonize Civil- and Anti-Corruption Principles Develop consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence on contracts vitiated by corruption, explicitly incorporating the clean-hands doctrine into civil practice.
Restrict successive judicial-review petitions to safeguard legal certainty.
Intensify coordination between civil and criminal judges in cases with overlapping issues to prevent contradictory rulings.
Harmonize substantive and procedural rules across fora to strengthen the legitimacy of the national legal system and deter misuse of civil litigation to legitimize corrupt conduct.
REFERENCES