Supreme Court Regulation No. 4/2025: Procedural Framework for OJK’s Consumer-Protection Lawsuits
Authors
Overview
Following the expansion of the Financial Services Authority’s (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan – “OJK”) mandate to initiate legal action for consumer protection, OJK issued Regulation No. 38 of 2025 on Lawsuits Filed by OJK for Consumer Protection in the Financial Services Sector (“OJK Regulation 38/2025”) in December 2025. The regulation authorizes OJK to file civil claims to recover assets and/or seek compensation on behalf of consumers who suffer losses arising from violations in the financial services sector. Kindly refer to our earlier article in here which discussed the key substantive features of OJK Regulation 38/2025.
While OJK Regulation 38/2025 establishes OJK’s legal standing and the substance of its litigation authority, it does not yet comprehensively regulate the procedural aspects for handling such claims before the courts. To fill this regulatory gap, the Supreme Court subsequently issued Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2025 on the Procedure for Adjudicating Lawsuits Filed by OJK as a Consumer Protection Measure (“MA Regulation 4/2025”). MA Regulation 4/2025 provides the procedural framework governing the filing, examination, and enforcement of OJK-initiated lawsuits.
In doing so, the Supreme Court reinforces OJK’s public-interest role as a form of parens patriae, enabling it to act on behalf of consumers and to balance the typically stronger position of financial service providers (pelaku usaha jasa keuangan or “PUJK”).
Court Jurisdiction
MA Regulation 4/2025 first clarifies the allocation of judicial competence. Article 4 of such regulation divides cases by the nature of the financial firm: Commercial Courts (Pengadilan Niaga) hear all OJK suits against conventional (non‐Syariah) financial entities, while Religious Courts (Pengadilan Agama) have exclusive jurisdiction over suits involving Sharia‐based financial firms. This “absolute competence” rule prevents overlap: any challenge against a conventional PUJK goes to Commercial Court, whereas suits against Islamic banks or other Syariah institutions go to the Religious Court.
Pre-Lawsuit Supervisory Action
Article 11 of MA Regulation 4/2025 introduces a substantive procedural prerequisite: OJK may only initiate lawsuit after commencing its supervisory powers (Tindakan Pengawasan) against the defendant PUJK. In practice, this means OJK’s lawsuit typically follows a cycle of warning, instruction or administrative sanction. In other words, litigation action authorized to OJK is meant as a last resort, OJK must have preliminarily engaged the PUJK (e.g. by issuing written orders or sanctions under financial-sector laws) before petitioning the court for remedies.
Contents of the Complaint and Compensation
MA Regulation 4/2025 tightly prescribes what must be in OJK’s complaint. Article 12 requires the pleadings to specify the supervisory action enforced to the relevant PUJK, the list of consumers, the total amount of consumer loss and the method of distributing compensation.
The regulation further clarifies that ongoing restructuring, resolution, or liquidation processes of the PUJK do not prevent OJK from filing a lawsuit. However, in such circumstances, OJK’s claim is generally limited to assets outside the scope of those special regimes (e.g., assets not included in bank restructuring or liquidation estates, or assets not pledged as collateral for emergency liquidity facilities). This limitation seeks to balance consumer recovery efforts with the integrity of financial stability and insolvency frameworks.
Trial Procedure and Opt-Out Mechanism
MA Regulation 4/2025 introduces a streamlined litigation track. All filings and hearings are to be conducted electronically, from first notice through judgment, typically through the e-court system under the Supreme Court’s virtual environment. The regulated stages depart sharply from ordinary civil cases. After service of the complaint, the court typically schedules a limited “jawab‐jinawab” phase (answer‐reply). Under Article 15 the first hearing is for reading the complaint, the second is for the defendant’s written answer, and then the case moves on to evidence and the stage of reading the verdict. Crucially, Article 17 excludes familiar steps: no replik (plaintiff’s reply), no duplik (defendant’s joinder), no counterclaims, no interventions and no final written submissions are permitted. This “fast track” model is designed to prevent delay with judges required to render a decision within 60 days of the first hearing.
Aligned with previously regulated under OJK Regulation 38/2025, MA Regulation 4/2025 also incorporates a collective‐opt-out mechanism. Before filing, OJK must publish on its official website (and in newspapers/office notices) a list of named consumer claimants to be represented in the suit. Each listed consumer has a limited period to “opt out” if they prefer to pursue an individual lawsuit. Those who opt out may litigate on their own; conversely, any consumer who remains in OJK’s list and is covered by the judgment is barred from later suing on the same cause of action.
Timelines for Judgment and Appeals
MA Regulation 4/2025 imposes strict procedural timelines. Article 22 mandates that the first-instance court deliver its decision no later than 60 days from the first hearing. MA Regulation 4/2025 eliminates intermediate appeals; therefore cases go from first-instance judgment directly to Supreme Court cassation. The regulation also streamlines the available legal remedies by eliminating intermediate appeals. Following a first-instance decision, the only recourse on the merits is a cassation petition directly to the Supreme Court, with no ordinary appeal to the High Court. Both OJK and the losing party must file the cassation petition within 14 days from the date the judgment is rendered or notified. The Supreme Court is then required to decide the case within 30 days from receipt of the cassation file.
These accelerated schedules and limited remedies aim to bring finality and certainty quickly which reflects the public-policy urgency of consumer protection.
Enforcement: Legal Remedies, Sita Jaminan and Sita Eksekusi
To ensure consumers actually recover losses, the key feature under this regulation is the allowance for asset seizure. Article 21 explicitly authorizes OJK to request sita jaminan (conservatory attachment) at the outset of the suit. After judgment, the court executes on the asset (via auction, attachment, etc.), then hands the proceeds to OJK to distribute to consumers. If those proceeds are insufficient, Article 27 lets OJK file for sita eksekusi, a further execution attachment on any remaining defendant assets.
Implications for Financial Service Providers and Consumers
For PUJK, the new regulation means a potentially adverse court process conducted on OJK’s initiative. OJK can sue virtually any licensed (or formerly licensed) institution whose violations allegedly harmed consumers. Defendants now face a high-stakes court procedure with limited procedural recourse: no second-instance appeal, an accelerated schedule, and tough evidence obligations (OJK only needs to show the violation caused actual loss). PUJK must be prepared to respond to a public‐interest suit that may follow even minor administrative sanctions.
For consumers, the framework provides a structured collective remedy. Eligible consumers (those on OJK’s list) can benefit from mass litigation without hiring counsel or paying up front. By law, they incur no court fees through trial and cassation. Their compensation (if any) will be calculated and distributed by OJK under judicial supervision. At the same time, the opt-out mechanism preserves individual autonomy, allowing consumers to pursue their own claims separately if preferred, while otherwise benefiting from a more streamlined and coordinated enforcement process.
Conclusion
MA Regulation No. 4/2025 operationalizes OJK’s expanded consumer-protection litigation powers under OJK Regulation 38/2025. By setting out clear jurisdictional rules, mandatory oversight pre-steps, detailed pleading requirements, expedited trial stages, and strong enforcement tools (including asset seizure), the regulation tries to ensure that these public-interest suits can be conducted effectively. The result is a new procedural regime: a mechanism that reaffirms and reinforces OJK’s legal standing as the highest authority in the financial services sector and, by virtue of its tenure and standing (ex officio), grants it the legal right to initiate class actions for and on behalf of consumers.
Disclaimer:
This client update is the property of ARMA Law and intended for providing general information and should not be treated as legal advice, nor shall it be relied upon by any party for any circumstance. ARMA Law has no intention to provide a specific legal advice with regard to this client update.
Related Updates
Latest Updates
