Tinjauan Yuridis Pembuktian Secara Persangkaan Terhadap Penyelesaian Sengketa Utang Piutang Secara Lisan (Studi Putusan Nomor 2411/K/Pdt/2021)

Abstract

Disputes over oral debt agreements often present evidentiary challenges due to the absence of written documentation. In court proceedings, the burden of proof in such cases relies on supporting evidence such as witness testimony, legal presumptions, confessions, and oaths. This is reflected in Supreme Court Decision Number 2411 K/Pdt/2021, where the district court rejected the claim due to lack of evidence, while the appellate court overturned the decision based on presumptive evidence indicating the existence of a debt agreement. This difference illustrates the varying perspectives among judges in handling oral debt disputes. This research uses a normative juridical method with a statutory and case study approach. Data was collected through literature review and analyzed qualitatively to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues examined. The findings show that judges are authorized to assess unwritten evidence such as presumptions, as long as it is based on legally recognized facts. In the case, the Supreme Court concurred with the appellate court’s reasoning, which relied on bank transfers, receipts, and the close personal relationship between the parties as the basis for presumption of debt. This is made possible by the legal discretion granted to judges in freely evaluating evidence. Thus, judicial independence plays a key role in ensuring justice in civil cases that are difficult to prove.