Pacta Sunt Servanda, Electronic Agreements, and Police Evidentiary Practice

Abstract

Electronic agreements are increasingly used in online sales, platform services, online credit, and digital commercial transactions. Their binding force is commonly justified through pacta sunt servanda under Article 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code. However, electronic agreements create problems that cannot be resolved by repeating classical civil-law doctrine alone, because electronic consent, standard clauses, authentication, electronic signatures, system reliability, and electronic evidence affect whether a digital agreement is valid, fair, enforceable, and provable. This article analyses how the binding force of electronic agreements should be interpreted under the Indonesian Civil Code, Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions as amended by Law Number 19 of 2016 and Law Number 1 of 2024, Government Regulation Number 71 of 2019, and consumer-protection principles. It also explains the relevance of electronic agreements to police handling of digital transaction disputes and online fraud complaints. This study uses normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and issue-based approaches. Primary legal materials include the Civil Code, the ITE Law and its amendments, Government Regulation Number 71 of 2019, and relevant rules on electronic evidence and standard clauses. The findings of this study demonstrate that electronic agreements bind the parties only when electronic consent is legally meaningful, the contractual clauses are not contrary to good faith or fairness, and the electronic system can support evidentiary reliability. In police practice, electronic agreements are relevant as initial evidentiary materials for distinguishing ordinary contractual default from online fraud. Thus, pacta sunt servanda in electronic agreements must be interpreted proportionally: it protects legal certainty, but it is limited by valid consent, good faith, consumer protection, system reliability, and evidentiary accountability.