Revolutionary Civil Procedure Law in the Development of Artificial Intelligence

Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17766428 273 ISRG PUBLISHERS Abbreviated Key Title: ISRG J Arts Humanit Soc Sci ISSN: 2583-7672 (Online) Journal homepage: https://isrgpublishers.com/isrgjahss Volume – III Issue -VI (November-December) 2025 Frequency: Bimonthly Revolutionary Civil Procedure Law in the Development of Artificial Intelligence Sherly Ayuna Putri1*, Yulinda Adharani2 1 Department of Civil Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia. 2 Department of Environmental and Spatial Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia | Received: 14.11.2025 | Accepted: 19.11.2025 | Published: 30.11.2025 *Corresponding author: Sherly Ayuna Putri Department of Civil Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia. Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the most rapidly evolving disruptive technologies in the era of Industry 4.0, serving as a cornerstone of global digital transformation. Generally, AI refers to the ability of computer systems or machines to emulate human intelligence, including learning, reasoning, and decision-making. In Indonesia, the adoption of AI has expanded across various sectors, such as automotive, retail, banking, and beyond (Apriliana et al.). The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace is not merely a passing trend but a necessity to enhance efficiency, foster creativity, and strengthen corporate competitiveness. Moreover, the application of AI can boost employee productivity and improve work quality (Pongtambing et al., 2023). The use of AI brings significant changes that influence how individuals work Abstract The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has brought revolutionary changes in various aspects of life, including in the practice of civil law. This paper aims to elaborate on AI from a legal perspective and its potential regulation in the realm of Civil Procedure Law. AI cannot be recognized as a legal subject like a legal entity because its existence depends on humans, it does not have full autonomy, and its decisions still require human supervision given the possibility of system errors. The application of AI in the justice system can improve efficiency through task automation, rapid data analysis, case outcome prediction, document management, virtual assistants, and online dispute resolution. Although AI is not recognized as a legal subject in Indonesia, liability for its unlawful actions can be shifted to AI providers or users. Regulators need to adapt civil procedural law to the demands of the Industrial Revolution 4.0. Although AI cannot be recognized as a legal subject, its civil liability can be transferred to its providers based on the doctrine of vicarious liability. In civil procedure law, AI offers efficiency in the judicial process but also requires special arrangements to ensure legal certainty and anticipate future disputes. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; civil procedural law; legal reform. Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17766428 274 and how organizations operate. AI has the capability to substantially increase productivity by performing repetitive tasks with a level of precision and speed that is difficult for humans to match. Consequently, an increasing number of companies in Indonesia are implementing AI technology to improve efficiency and resource allocation, allowing them to focus more on long-term goals and innovation (Suwandita et al., 2023). The diverse benefits offered by AI do not automatically resolve the ethical dilemmas and questions associated with its application. Elon Musk has expressed his concerns, asserting that artificial intelligence poses greater risks than nuclear power due to its potential to evolve rapidly without control, surpassing human intelligence, and possibly leading to unforeseen consequences (Rahardja, 2022). Additionally, research by Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2017) on the impact of AI in the workplace highlights significant shifts in labor dynamics and organizational frameworks. The Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) has released the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy of Indonesia 2020–2045 to facilitate the beneficial implementation of AI in the country. However, this framework remains a general policy guideline and lacks specific regulations (zahrashafa-pmangga-priancha, 2022), despite the fact that many companies in Indonesia have already incorporated AI technology into their production processes. AI itself comprises various branches and approaches, such as machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and computer vision, each excelling in addressing different types of challenges. Machine learning enables computers to learn from data and improve performance without explicit programming, while deep learning, a subset of machine learning, utilizes artificial neural networks that mimic the human brain to recognize highly complex patterns. In Indonesia, NLP (Natural Language Processing) technology is increasingly utilized in customer service through chatbots, social media sentiment analysis, and automated language translation. These innovations further reinforce AI's role as a tool that not only executes commands but also analyzes, adapts, and evolves based on real-time information. This research aims to examine artificial intelligence (AI) from a legal perspective, particularly regarding its potential regulation within the realm of Civil Procedure Law. This is based on the assumption that, with the advancement of the digital economy, legal progress must be facilitated not only through legislative development but also through legal instruments and enforcement mechanisms that do not impede commercial activities, thereby enabling the resolution of legal disputes in the digital era. In line with the view that legal development serves as a mechanism for societal renewal that evolves with progress across various fields, a thorough study of AI through the lens of Civil Procedure Law as formal law has become an increasingly relevant and compelling area of research. Discussion Legal Status of AI as an Electronic Agent in Civil Law Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds an increasingly critical position in the context of civil law and technology regulation in Indonesia, given its ability to autonomously mimic human behavior. AI systems are embedded as components of larger systems rather than functioning as standalone entities (Floridi, L., 2019). Referring to another definition that emphasizes AI’s specific purposes, it is stated: ―Artificial Intelligence refers to systems that display intelligent behavior by analyzing their environment and taking action with some degree of autonomy to achieve something special.‖ In line with this understanding, S. Legg and M. Hutter assert that artificial intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals across various environments. This aligns with the view of AI as an entity (Barak, A., 2019) capable of receiving input from its environment, interpreting it, learning from that input, and exhibiting flexible behavior and actions to help the entity achieve specific goals within a given timeframe. Simply put, AI can be defined as a device designed to assist human tasks, with the ability to reason and act in a human-like manner. Its strength lies in its speed and accuracy in processing data and making decisions, often surpassing humans in certain aspects. These characteristics qualify AI to be equated with an "Electronic Agent" under Indonesian legislation. Under Article 1 of Law Number 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (UU ITE), an electronic agent is defined as ―a device within an electronic system created to perform specific actions on certain electronic information automatically, as organized by a person.‖ Article 21 of the UU ITE regulates the role of electronic agents in electronic transactions, stating that the organizer of an electronic agent is the organizer of the electronic system. This means that all rights and obligations of the electronic system organizer apply mutatis mutandis to the organizer of the electronic agent. Electronic system organizers are obligated to ensure their systems are reliable, secure, and accountable. Consequently, the legal responsibility for AI as an electronic agent falls on the system organizer, unless negligence by the user is proven. In commercial law, an electronic agent can be regarded as an intermediary trader authorized to act on electronic information based on a delegation agreement ("lastgeving") (Agus Sardjono, 2014). In this case, the AI organizer acts as an agent (delegatee), while the information owner serves as the principal. The agent’s obligations in performing its duties are guided by Article 1800 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata), which requires the agent to execute the mandate diligently. If negligence occurs, legal responsibility remains with the agent. However, the status of AI as an agent does not imply that it possesses legal capacity as a legal subject. According to L.J. Van Apeldoorn, for a legal subject to perform a legal act, it must have the capacity to hold and exercise certain rights. Although AI can perform intelligent actions, it remains a tool (object), not a legal subject, as it lacks independent will, and all its actions depend on human programming and settings (Smith, J., 2019). A further issue arises concerning civil liability for AI actions that cause harm. Under the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata), harm can result from breach of contract or unlawful acts (PMH). In the context of AI, PMH may occur if AI autonomously performs illegal actions causing harm. However, since AI is not a legal subject, legal liability cannot be directly imposed on it. Article 1367 of the KUHPerdata states that a person is responsible for harm caused by another person or property under their supervision. This raises the question: does AI, as an autonomous object, fall within this scope? If so, who can be considered its supervisor—the programmer, owner, user, or another party? Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17766428 275 In this regard, the doctrine of vicarious liability or substituted responsibility (Shabrina Fadiah Ghazmi, 2021) becomes a key foundation. This doctrine holds that a party not directly committing an act can still be held liable, such as an employer for an employee’s actions. Thus, in the context of AI, liability rests with the AI system organizer—namely, the human or legal entity that creates, operates, or employs it. Hans Kelsen argues that legal responsibility is a relationship between the actor and sanctions for violating legal norms. Therefore, if AI violates the law, the party operating or controlling it must bear legal responsibility. This reinforces that current positive law in Indonesia does not recognize AI as a legal subject, meaning liability for all legal consequences of AI actions remains with parties possessing legal capacity as legal subjects. Consequently, within Indonesia’s legal system, AI is positioned as a tool (object), not a legal subject with independent responsibility. All actions by AI that cause harm are ultimately attributable to the human or legal entity with authority and oversight over the system. Revolutionary Civil Procedure Law to Anticipate the Artificial Intelligence Era Technological advancements, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), have brought significant changes across various sectors of life, including the legal field. AI not only provides convenience and efficiency but also has the potential to create new legal conflicts. In this context, the legal system, especially civil procedure law, is required to anticipate and adapt to these new realities. Civil procedure law consists of a set of regulations governing the process of filing claims for violations of an individual’s or group’s legal rights or interests in court to achieve legal order. As formal law, civil procedure must evolve with the times to address new issues arising in the digital and AI era. Currently, AI has been applied in various forms, ranging from antihoax chatbots developed by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics in collaboration with PT Prosa Solusi Cerdas, Face Recognition platforms by Nodeflux, to Covid-19 detection tools using GeNose with AI systems. In the legal field, AI plays a role in various aspects of the judicial system, such as e-discovery (automated legal document analysis), case outcome predictions based on historical data, efficient legal document management, virtual legal assistants (chatbots providing basic legal answers), and online dispute resolution with efficient and rapid systems. However, the application of AI is not without potential errors. For instance, AI in reviewing contracts may make mistakes in drafting clauses, impacting contract execution and causing harm to one party. Errors in Face Recognition detection can also lead to misuse of personal data. In such cases, disputes arising from AI errors require resolution in court, relying on an adequate civil procedure system, including proof-related aspects. Proof is the most critical stage in civil cases, as it is the basis for a judge’s conviction regarding the claims presented. In the digital era, evidence has shifted from conventional to electronic forms. Unfortunately, the current civil procedure law does not explicitly accommodate electronic evidence, as its regulation remains within the realm of substantive law, such as the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), which recognizes electronic documents and letters as valid evidence in court. To address these challenges, the reform of civil procedure law is urgently needed. This effort has been initiated through the drafting of the Civil Procedure Law Bill (RUU Haper), which has been included in the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) since 2021. This bill implicitly anticipates the use of evidence beyond conventionally regulated forms, including electronic evidence. Although it does not explicitly mention digital evidence or AIgenerated evidence, the RUU Haper opens the possibility for accepting new types of evidence regulated by other laws. With AI in the judicial system and the increasing number of digital-based transactions and legal actions, updating civil procedure law is no longer just a need but a necessity. The Civil Procedure Law Bill should be enacted promptly to provide legal certainty and order, while remaining open to refinements to adapt to technological advancements. Regulators and national policymakers need to align civil procedure law with the changes brought by Industry 4.0 and AI technology. The goal is to ensure that civil procedure law does not become an obstacle but rather a facilitator in guaranteeing justice, avoiding disruptions in societal life, and providing legal certainty within the national legal system. Conclusion Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to replace human tasks; however, its status cannot be equated with that of a legal subject, as a legal subject inherently possesses not only rights and obligations but also legal responsibility. The principle of vicarious liability or substituted responsibility, which holds that liability for an individual’s actions or negligence can be attributed to another party, serves as the basis for assigning responsibility to AI. Therefore, civil liability for legal acts performed by AI is borne by the operator or party using the AI, given that AI’s role as an ―agent‖ cannot be equated with a commercial agent in commercial law. Artificial Intelligence holds significant potential to revolutionize civil procedure law by enhancing efficiency and effectiveness. Although the technology promises improved efficiency and accuracy in judicial processes, its presence also raises complex legal challenges that must be addressed seriously, including the need for regulations within civil procedure law to govern dispute resolution through courts. The development of legal practice must be balanced with appropriate legislative rules to ensure legal certainty and serve as a preventive legal protection mechanism. This need has been anticipated in the future direction of civil procedure law development, aiming to integrate future innovations, particularly in the proof stage of court cases. One such innovation is the recognition of AI, which has the potential to cause harm and trigger legal conflicts due to its involvement in legal actions. Bibliography 1. Agus Sardjono, et.all, Pengantar Hukum Dagang, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta, 2014. 2. Apriliana, H. K., Kornarius, Y. P., Caroline, A., Gusti, T. E. P., & Gunawan, A. (2024). Perkembangan Penerapan Teknologi Artificial Intelligence di Indonesia. Jurnal Syntax Admiration, 5(10), 3864-3874,2024. 3. Barak, A., The Roles of Judge and Algorithm: Balancing Judicial Independence and Artificial Intelligence, The Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17766428 276 University of Chicago Law Review, 86(4), 815-838, 2019. 4. Eka Nanda Ravizki dan Lintang Yudhantara, Artificial Intelligence Sebagai Subjek Hukum: Tinjauan Konseptual dan Tantangan Pengaturan di Indonesia, Jurnal Notaire, Vol 5 No 3, Oktober 2022. 5. Floridi, L., Artificial Intelligence's New Frontier: Artificial Companions and the Fourth Revolution, Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 295-312, 2019. 6. L. J. van Apeldoorn, Pengantar Ilmu Hukum, Penerbit Pradnya Paramita, Jakarta, 1983. 7. Liu, H., Selove, N., & Coglianese, C., Artificial Intelligence in the Regulatory State, California Law Review, 108(1), 113-188, 2020. 8. Ngadino, Peranan Hukum Dalam Globalisasi Ekonomi, Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum, Vol 1 No 1, April 2014 9. Pongtambing Y. S., Pitrianti S., Sadno M., Admawati H., & Sampetoding E. A. M., Peran dan Peluang Kecerdasan Buatan dalam Proses Bisnis UMKM, Ininnawa: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat, 1(2), 201–206, 2023 10. Rahardja U., Social Media Analysis as a Marketing Strategy in Online Marketing Business, Startupreneur Business Digital (SABDA Journal), 1(2), 176–182, 2022. 11. Shabrina Fadiah Ghazmi, Urgensi Pengaturan Artificial Intelligence Pada Sektor Bisnis Daring Di Indonesia, Rewang Rencang: Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis. Vol.2. No.8, 2021. 12. Smith, J., Artificial Intelligence in the Legal System: Implications for Civil Procedure, Journal of Law and Technology, 35(2), 45-61, 2019. 13. Suwandita A. D., Pijasari V., Prasetyowati A. E. D., & Anshori M. I., Analisis Data Human Resources untuk Pengambilan Keputusan: Penggunaan Analisis Data dan Artificial Intelligence (AI) dalam Meramalkan Tren Sumber Daya Manusia, Pengelolaan Talenta, dan Retensi Karyawan, Manajemen Kreatif Jurnal, 1(4), 97– 111, 2023. 14. Zahrashafa PM & Angga Priancha, Pengaturan Hukum Artificial Intelligence di Indonesia Saat Ini, tersedia di: https://law.ui.ac.id/pengaturan-hukum-artificalintelligence-indonesia-saat-ini-oleh-zahrashafa-pmangga-priancha/.