By Setyawati Fitrianggraeni, Reynalda Basya Ilyas and Aga Kristiana Silaen

Maritime incidents[1] in Indonesia often expose overlapping layers of liability; administrative, civil, and criminal. The Admiralty Court (Mahkamah Pelayaran) plays a unique, but limited role: it investigates maritime incidents and imposes administrative sanctions, usually on captains or crew. Civil liability and compensation, however, must be pursued through the general courts or arbitration. This article explores how maritime incidents generate these parallel legal processes, while also contrasting them with maritime-related crimes, such as customs violations, which remain outside the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction.

Introduction

As an archipelagic state, shipping is both the backbone of trade and an important mode of transportation. Yet with such reliance comes significant risk. Ship collisions or burning ships could cause financial losses which result in financial disputes involving shipowners, operators, insurers, cargo interests, and administrative sanctions to the captain and crew member. At the same time, maritime-related crimes in port areas, including customs violations and other unlawful conduct connected to shipping, highlight a different set of risks. These incidents underscore the need for a legal framework that can swiftly attribute liability in incidents but also address accountability in the broader maritime sector.

The Admiralty Court has its origins in the Raad Voor de Scheepvaart, an institution of the Dutch East Indies. This framework was adopted in Indonesia after its independence through Government Regulation Number 1 of 1952, which outlined the Composition and Authority of the Admiralty Court. [2] The Indonesian Admiralty Court (Mahkamah Pelayaran) was established to provide a specialized forum for investigating maritime accidents. Its procedures differ from those of general courts. Instead of adversarial litigation between plaintiffs and defendants who voluntarily submit evidence, the Admiralty Court uses an inquisitorial model. Panels of maritime experts may compel testimony and documentary evidence from captains, crews, shipowners, and operators. This reflects recognition that accidents often involve technical factors—navigation, seaworthiness, and safety compliance — that demand expert scrutiny.

Even so, the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction is narrow. Its findings mainly serve as the basis for administrative and disciplinary sanctions, such as warnings, suspension or revocation of seafarers’ certificates, or restrictions on business licenses. Victims of collisions—ship owners,  operators, cargo owners, and insurers—must still turn to district courts for damages, while criminal liability proceeds through the general judicial system.

The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court defines only part of the legal process in maritime incidents. While the Admiralty Court investigates maritime incidents and imposes administrative sanctions, claims for damages must be pursued separately through civil proceedings in the District Court or through arbitration. In cases where a maritime incident also involves criminal elements, the matter may give rise to prosecution before the criminal courts.

Authority of the Admiralty Court: Case Study

We focus our analysis on these two cases.

• Admiralty Court Decision Number HK.212/06/VII/MP/2020 concerning the KLM Burning Ship Accident. Cahaya Mandiri at East Kalibaru Pier, Tanjung Emas Bay, Semarang. (“Decision of 2020”) and
• Admiralty Court Decision Number: HK.212/1/7/MP/2025 Regarding the KLM Ocean Pure 1 Ship Accident on December 31, 2024 at 16.40 WIT in the waters of West Waigeo Raja Ampat at coordinates 00 20′ 59.24″ LS/130 11(“Decision of 2025”)

The 2025 Decision was made after the implementation of Law No. 66 of 2024, addressing a similar issue regarding ships that caught fire. There are several notable differences between this decision and the 2020 ruling:

1. The handling of the case is now faster. In 2020, the timeline for adjudication extended from November 2019 to July 2020. The 2025 decision specifies a timeframe from December 2024 to July 2025.
2. For the handling of Decision of 2025, the Admiralty Court appointed an expert from the Directorate of Shipping and Seawater. This differed from the Decision of 2020, where no expert was appointed to provide input.

In addition, the Decision of 2020 and Decision of 2025 are as follows:

1. The 2020 decision freed the Captain after it was determined that the fire incident on the ship was not caused by the Captain’s negligence. Instead, the fire was due to the explosion of a 12 kg LPG gas cylinder used for cooking rice in the kitchen.
2. The Decision of 2025 punishes the Captain with a warning because, in the event of a ship fire, the Captain has not fully carried out drill duties in an emergency.

Since its establishment in the early 1950s and until the implementation of Law No. 17 of 2008, the Admiralty Court Authority has maintained the responsibility to investigate ship incidents and impose administrative sanctions on ship owners and captains. Its key development has been the expansion of its role in safety policy recommendations.

Furthermore, the Shipping Law itself has been amended, most notably through Law No. 17 of 2008 concerning Shipping, which was later amended by Law No. 66 of 2024. Under the current framework, the authority of the Admiralty Court are as follows:

1. conducting follow-up investigation examinations into ship accidents;
2. enforcing the professional code of ethics and competence of ship captains and/or crews;
3. conducting investigation examinations of operators, ship owners, and authorized officers/officials who are related to the cause of ship accidents;
4. imposing administrative sanctions on ship captains, ship officers, operators, ship owners, and/or officers/officials proven to have committed errors and/or negligence that resulted in ship accidents; and
5. mediating the resolution of maritime employment contract disputes. [3]

Legal Remedies and Sanctions following Maritime Incidents

Legal remedies for maritime Incidents can be pursued through the appropriate legal mechanisms. The Admiralty Court addresses administrative sanctions, whereas compensation or civil claim may be brought through the District Court and/or Arbitration. Additionally, criminal prosecutions can be initiated if criminal elements are present in a maritime incident.

For instance, in the case of the collision between the fish-laden ship KM Sanjaya Fisherindo and the empty cargo ship KM Jala Karya Sukses on 18 January 2021, the Admiralty Court imposed administrative sanctions on each ship’s captain. [4] However, the case was also brought before the Probolinggo District Court by PT Rejeki Samudera Makmur, who filed as the plaintiff. The defendants included Jala Karya Sukses Abadi as Defendant I, Sue Tie (the captain), as Defendant II, and Taufik (crew member) as Defendant III. Ultimately, at the cassation level, the court ruled in favor of PT Rejeki Samudera Makmur, granting them the right to receive approximately 6.7 billion Rupiah in compensation.[5]

Another illustration arises from case No. 942/PID/2021/PT.MDN jo 288/Pid.B/2021/PN.MDN, concerning the smuggling of imported consumer goods without travel documents. The criminal act was uncovered following an inspection by Witness Ujianto, commander of the Customs and Excise Patrol. The defendant Ahad Nazirin, a ship captain, was charged under Article 102 letter a of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2006 concerning Amendments to Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 10 of 1995 concerning Customs, which criminalizes the importation of goods without proper documentation. This demonstrates how maritime incidents that involve unlawful conduct may also fall squarely under the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.[6]

Key Takeaways and Actions

 A thorough understanding of the division of authority between the Admiralty Court and the General Judicial Courts is necessary for governing maritime incidents in Indonesia. The Admiralty Court provides technical inquiries and imposes administrative sanctions but does not resolve compensation or criminal liability. Civil courts remain the primary forum for monetary claims, while criminal courts address offenses constituting crimes.

For policymakers, it remains to be seen how the Admiralty Court’s newer authority to sanction operators and shipowners will shape accountability and better compliance in practice.

For industry actors, Admiralty Court findings should be treated as persuasive but not conclusive.
For cargo interests and insurers, continue relying on civil courts and arbitral tribunals for enforceable compensation in cargo damage and commercial disputes.

Closing Reflections

In conclusion, the authority of the Admiralty Court and the General Judicial Courts in Indonesia reflects a dual but complementary system.

The Admiralty Court has a narrow jurisdiction, focusing on maritime accidents and professional accountability of shipmasters and officers through administrative sanctions. It does not adjudicate civil compensation or criminal liability, but its findings may provide valuable technical evidence.

On the other hand, the General Judicial Courts exercise broad jurisdiction over civil and criminal disputes arising from maritime incidents and criminal offense in the port and shipping context. These courts determine compensation for losses, decide contractual disputes, and impose penal sanctions when negligence or unlawful conduct constitutes a criminal act.

The interaction between these two forums creates both opportunities and challenges. The Admiralty Court provides technical expertise that general courts can rely upon, while the general courts safeguard remedies for stakeholders.

Ultimately, both institutions play indispensable roles in safeguarding maritime safety, accountability, and dispute resolution. Together, they strengthen Indonesia’s legal framework as a maritime nation.

REFERENCES

 Law No 21 of 1992 concerning Shipping (Indonesia).

Law No 17 of 2008 concerning Shipping (Indonesia), as amended by Law No 66 of 2024.

Government Regulation No 1 of 1952 concerning the Structure and Authority of the Admiralty Court (Indonesia).

Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Probolinggo, available at https://sipp.pn-probolinggo.go.id/index.php/detil_perkara

Ghalib Alghani Lusarna, ‘Maritime Tribunal as Quasi-Judicial Body in Indonesia’ (2022) Jurnal Penerjemahan https://journal.ui.ac.id/translation/article/view/21570/9426.

Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung,available at https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/zaebf473e586c7eea733323330303137.html

Achmad Jauhari, ‘Penyelesaian Ganti Rugi Atas Kecelakaan Kapal di Indonesia dalam Perspektif Tanggung Jawab Perdata’ (2024) ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377548452_Penyelesaian_Ganti_Rugi_Atas_Kecelakaan_Kapal_di_Indonesia_dalam_Perspektif_Tanggung_Jawab_Perdata/link/65abc71cf323f74ff1e02b43/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19.

[1] Maritime Incident in this article refers to a shipwreck, capsizing, collision, or stranding of the ship, explosion or fire on the ship, or defects in the ship. This article excludes maritime incidents that cause death or personal injury.

[2]GR No. 1 of 1952 concerning the structure and authority of Admiralty Court

[3] Law No. 17 of 2008 jo. Law No. 66 of 2024 concerning Shipping Law

[4] Achmad, Jauhari ”Penyelesaian Ganti Rugi Atas Kecelakaan Kapal di Indonesia dalam Perspektif Tanggung Jawab Perdata” (2024)

[5] https://sipp.pn-probolinggo.go.id/index.php/detil_perkara

[6] https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/zaebf473e586c7eea733323330303137.html

 DISCLAIMER:

This disclaimer applies to the publication of articles by Anggraeni and Partners. By accessing or reading any articles published by Anggraeni and Partners, you acknowledge and agree to the terms of this disclaimer:

No Legal Advice: The articles published by Anggraeni and Partners are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The information provided in the articles is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between Anggraeni and Partners and the reader. The articles should not be relied upon as a substitute for seeking professional legal advice. For specific legal advice tailored to your individual circumstances, please consult a qualified attorney.

Accuracy and Completeness: Anggraeni and Partners strive to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information presented in the articles. However, we do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, currency, or completeness of the information. Laws and legal interpretations may vary, and the information in the articles may not be applicable to your jurisdiction or specific situation. Therefore, Anggraeni and Partners disclaim any liability for any errors or omissions in the articles.

No Endorsement: Any references or mentions of third-party organizations, products, services, or websites in the articles are for informational purposes only and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by Anggraeni and Partners. We do not assume responsibility for the accuracy, quality, or reliability of any third-party information or services mentioned in the articles.

No Liability: Anggraeni and Partners, its partners, attorneys, employees, or affiliates shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or special damages arising out of or in connection with the use of the articles or reliance on any information contained therein. This includes but is not limited to, loss of data, loss of profits, or damages resulting from the use or inability to use the articles.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: Reading or accessing the articles does not establish an attorney-client relationship between Anggraeni and Partners and the reader. The information provided in the articles is general in nature and may not be applicable to your specific legal situation. Any communication with Anggraeni and Partners through the articles or any contact form on the website does not create an attorney-client relationship or establish confidentiality.

By accessing or reading the articles, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agreed to this disclaimer. If you do not agree with any part of this disclaimer, please refrain from accessing or reading the articles published by Anggraeni and Partners.

 

For further information, please contact:

WWW.AP-LAWSOLUTION.COM

P: 6221. 7278 7678, 72795001

H: +62 811 8800 427

Anggraeni and Partners is a boutique Indonesian law firm with global foresight, trusted by multinationals for dispute resolution, pre-dispute advisory, and regulatory consulting in ocean-maritime, energy, technology, and trade. Discuss further with us at connect@ap-lawsolution.net.

 

S.F. Anggraeni

Managing Partner

fitri@ap-lawsolution.net

 

Reynalda Basya Ilyas

Associate

Aga Kristiana Silaen

Associate