This study attempts to explain the reconceptualization of objection legal remedies in the Small Claims Court procedure as the sole legal remedy against court decisions in cases of tort and default resolved by a simple lawsuit procedure. This investigation employs a normative legal methodology with a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case study approach. This study's findings indicate that the objection legal remedy in the simple lawsuit procedure has several flaws, including the inability to properly implement the Audi Et Alteram Partem principle because the parties do not have the same opportunity to prove their arguments during the case examination procedure. In addition, it will be difficult for the parties to demonstrate a judex facti error through objection law remedies because there is no additional examination that permits a reexamination of existing evidence or the introduction of new evidence. The existence of additional examinations on objection legal remedies will become a normative construction capable of overcoming numerous weaknesses in establishing objection legal remedies. In order to uphold procedural and substantive justice, the additional examination process must also be based on considerations "for the purpose of achieving the judge's conviction based on the available evidence."