Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penyelesaian sengketa di luar pengadilan terus mengalami peningkatan seiring dengan meningkatnya pengetahuan masyarakat akan keuntungan dan kemudahan yang diperoleh dari proses tersebut. Dalam penulisan skripsi ini membahas tentang sengketa yang terjadi dalam perjanjian kontrak kerjasama yang tercantum di dalamnya klausula arbitrase. Pengaturan mengenai Arbitrase ini sendiri telah diatur melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Melalui penelitian ini maka akan diteliti permasalahan yang timbul terkait dengan pelaksanaan eksekusi melalui putusan arbitrase international. Selain itu, penelitian ini bertujuan mempelajari dan menganalisis kualifikasi tentang ketertiban umum dengan pembatalan atau penolakan putusan arbitrase asing dan cara kerjanya di Indonesia. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan hukum sosiologis yang merupakan penelitian hukum mengacu pada hukum dan perjanjian dan diperiksa oleh keputusan pengadilan atau arbitrase.Untuk itu diperlukan metode penafsiran sesuai dengan doktrin yang dilakukan untuk melakukan penemuan hukum, sehingga dapat menciptakan kepastian hukum dalam penyelesaian perkara arbitrase.

---

Settlement of disputes outside the courts continued to increase along with the increasing knowledge of the community will benefit and convenience gained from the process. In writing this essay discusses the dispute in a cooperative contract agreement that the arbitration clause contained therein. Regulation of arbitration itself has been regulated by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Through this research will be examined problems that arise related to the execution through international arbitration decision. In addition, this research aims to study and analyze the qualifications of public order with the cancellation or denial of a foreign award and how it works in Indonesia.

The method used in this study is the legal approach which is a legal research sosiological refers to the laws and treaties and examined by a court decision or arbritati.That was necessary method of interpretation in accordance with the doctrine committed to the discovery of the law, so as to create legal certainty in the settlement arbitration."

"Putusan arbitrase yang bersifat final dan mengikat bagi para pihak, akan tetapi Pasal 70 UU No. 30 tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa memberikan upaya untuk mengajukan permohonan pembatalan melalui Pengadilan Negeri. Upaya hukum permohohan pembatalan mengakibatkan proses penyelesaian sengketa menjadi berlarut-larut, meskipun para pihak telah sepakat untuk mengenyampingkan upaya hukum permohonan pembatalan tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian deskriptif yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan statute approach , pendekatan konseptual conceptual approach dan pendekatan kasus case approach . Tindakan salah satu pihak yang mengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase meskipun telah dikesampingkan dalam perjanjian secara hukum telah dianggap melakukan cidera janji wanprestasi dan melanggar asas kekuatan mengikat pacta sunt servanda dari Pasal 1338 ayat 1 KUH Perdata dan melanggar asas kepastian hukum. Kesepakatan pengenyampingan upaya pembatalan putusan arbitrase telah meniadakan dan melepaskan hak para pihak untuk mengajukan pembatalan putusan arbitrse melalui pengadilan, namun dalam praktek majelis hakim sama sekali tidak mempertimbangkan adanya kesepakatan pengenyampingan tersebut, sebaliknya tetap memeriksa dan mengadili pokok perkara dan membatalkan putusan arbitrase yang telah bersifat final dan mengikat. Seharusnya, majelis hakim dalam mengeluarkan putusan tetap berpedoman pada isi perjanjian yang dibuat oleh para pihak sebagai konsekuensi dari asas pacta sund servanda sepanjang perjanjian arbitrse tersebut telah memenuhi syarat sahnya perjanjian sebagaimana Pasal 1320 sampai dengan Pasal 1337 KUH Perdata.

---

Arbitration award is final and binding for the parties, however Article 70 of Law No. 30 of 1999 regarding Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolutions provides a right to file a request for cancellation through the District Court. The legal remedy to request annulment caused the dispute settlement process extended, even though the parties have agreed to waive legal remedy on such cancelation. The research is descriptive research which is normative juridical and the approaches are statute approach, conceptual approach and case approach. The request for the cancellation of an arbitral award filed by the party even though it has been ruled out in the treaty is considered as a breach of contract and violates the principle of pacta sunt servanda of Article 1338 paragraph 1 of Indonesian Civil Code and has violated the legal certainty principle. A waiver agreement for the cancellation of the arbitral award has nullified and waived the parties 39 right to file the annulment of the arbitral award through the court, however in practice the judges did not consider the existence of the waiver agreement, on the contrary to examine and adjudicate the case and nullify the final and binding arbitral award. Supposedly, the judges in issuing the decision shall remain guided by the contents of the agreement made by the parties as a consequence of pacta sund servanda principle as long as the arbitration agreement has met the requirements of the validity of the agreement as regulated in Article 1320 to Article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis peraturan perundang-undangan terkait pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dan prakteknya di lembaga peradilan di Indonesia berdasarkan aspek-aspek Hukum Perdata Internasional. Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketentuan mengenai pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dalam UU Arbitrase belum jelas dan memadai. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari berbagai aturan mengenai pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dan alasan-alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Lembaga peradilan di Indonesia pada prakteknya masih inkonsisten dalam menerapkan aturan-aturan tersebut. Contohnya adalah kasus antara PT Sumber Subur Mas, Yusman Tamara, Imelda Irawan melawan Transpac Capital Pte. Ltd., dan Transpac Industrial Holdings Limited ;dan kasus antara PT Daya Mandiri Resources Indonesia (d/h PT Risna Karya Wardhana Mandiri) dan PT Dayaindo Resources melawan Suek AG.

---

Arbitral Award with the practice of Indonesian Court in accordance with the aspects of Private International Law. The author uses a juridical-normative research method with an addition of literature studies.

This research shows that the regulation about the annulment of international arbitral award in Law of Arbitration has not been clear and sufficient. This can be seen from numerous rules about the annulment of International Arbitral Award and the grounds of the annulment of arbitral awards. The Indonesian Court has been inconsistent to implement these regulations.

The examples are the case between Transpac Capital Pte. Ltd., and Transpac Industrial Holdings Limited; and the case between PT Daya Mandiri Resources Indonesia (d/h PT Risna Karya Wardhana Mandiri) and PT Dayaindo Resources melawan Suek AG."

"Forum Arbitrase merupakkan forum penyelesaian sengketa yang acapkali dipilih oleh para pihak untuk menyelesaikan sengketa perjanjian perdagangan karena alasan-alasan efektivitas dan biayanya yang murah. Namun dengan perkembangan perekonomian dunia yang diiringi dengan kebebasan para pihak dalam hal menerapkan Pilihan Forum, hasil penyelesaian sengketa demikian berpotensi untuk mengandung unsur-unsur asing sebagai akibat dari para pihak yang tunduk pada sistem hukum yang berbeda, terletak pada wilayah hukum yang berbeda, dan/atau bahkan memilih forum Arbitrase asing yang tunduk pada ketentuan hukum yang berlainan dari pihak dalam perjanjian perdagangan tersebut. Kemudian dalam keberlakuannya, putusan Arbitrase dapat dimintakan permohonan pembatalannya ke pengadilan negeri. Meskipun demikian, Indonesia yang memiliki ketentuan hukum Arbitrase nya sendiri, yakni UU No, 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (UUAAPS), serta negara anggota New York Convention on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (Konvensi New York 1958), menjadi subjek terhadap dua ketentuan pembatalan putusan Arbitrase yang berbeda. Dalam pengaturannya, ketentuan pembatalan UUAAPS hanya dapat berlaku bagi putusan Arbitrase nasional, sedangkan Konvensi New York 1958 berlaku bagi Putusan Arbitrase Internasional. Kendati demikian, suatu putusan Arbitrase dapat mengandung unsur asing, dan hal ini seringkali mengundang interpretasi yang turut berpengaruh pada penerapan UUAAPS dan Konvensi New York 1958. Kenyataan ini merupakan salah satu ruang lingkup kajian Hukum Perdata Internasional karena dalam hal penentuan kewenangan oleh pengadilan negeri dalam perkara pembatalan putusan Arbitrase yang mengandung unsur asing, timbul pertanyaan “Pengadilan negara manakah yang berwenang untuk mengadili pembatalan putusan Arbitrase yang mengandung unsur asing tersebut?” Melalui penelitian yuridis-normatif, skripsi ini akan menganalisis praktik kewenangan mengadili oleh pengadilan negeri di Indonesia sehubungan dengan penerapan pasal-pasal pembatalan Arbitrase yang ada

---

As one of the dispute resolution forums, arbitration, is often chosen by the parties to resolve commercial agreement disputes due to its effectiveness and cost efficiency. However, as the world’s economy develops, accompanied by the freedom in implementing the choice of forum, the results of such dispute resolution potentially contain foreign elements due to the parties being subject to different legal systems, being located in different jurisdictions, and/or even choosing a foreign arbitration which has different legal system from the parties involved in the commercial agreement. Notwithstanding aforementioned explanation, arbitration award can be requested for its annulment to the district court. Nevertheless, Indonesia with its own Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law), while also participating as the member states of the New York Convention on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention 1958), is subject to two different provisions for arbitral award annulment. For example, the provisions for the arbitral award annulment in UUAAPS is only applicable for national arbitral award, while the annulment provision in New York Convention 1958 applies to foreign arbitral award. However, an arbitral award may contain foreign elements, which often results in different interpretations in its implementation and influences the application of the Arbitration Law and the New York Convention 1958. This event falls within the scope of Private International Law’s studies because it raises the question of "Which district court has the authority to adjudicate the annulment of arbitral awards containing the foreign elements?" Through normative-juridical research, this undergraduate thesis will analyse the practice of Indonesian district court’s authority in adjudicating the annulment of said arbitral award in relation to the application of existing arbitration annulment regulations."

"Kondisi Indonesia yang saat ini telah menjadi salah satu negara anggota New York Convention on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention 1958) membuka peluang bagi putusan arbitrase internasional untuk dapat diakui dan dilaksanakan di wilayah hukum Republik Indonesia. Dalam hal ini klasifikasi suatu putusan arbitrase, apakah merupakan putusan arbitrase internasional atau putusan arbitrase nasional, menjadi penting karena berpengaruh terhadap kewenangan pengadilan terhadap perkara arbitrase internasional. Namun pada praktiknya dijumpai adanya perbedaan persepsi mengenai putusan arbitrase internasional menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (Undang-Undang Arbitrase) dan konvensi internasional. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif skripsi ini akan memberikan analisis mengenai aspek-aspek Hukum Perdata Internasional serta analisis mengenai pertimbangan hukum para hakim di Indonesia dalam pengklasifikasian putusan arbitrase internasional pada perkara Nomor 144/K/Pdt/2012 dan perkara Nomor 175/PDT/2018/PT.DKI. Selain itu juga ditemukan keperluan atas keselarasan pengaturan mengenai putusan arbitrase internasional dalam Undang-Undang Arbitrase dan konvensi-konvensi internasional demi mencapai kepastian hukum.

---

The condition of Indonesia which is one of the member country of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention 1958) give an opportunity to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the jurisdiction of Indonesia. According to this condition the classification of arbitral awards, whether international arbitral award or national arbitral award, is important because it could affects the authority of the national court against international arbitration cases. In fact, there is a different perspective about international arbitral awards under the Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law) and international convention.

By using juridical normative approach, this thesis would give an analysis about the Private International Aspects and law considerations of Indonesian judges in the classification of international arbitral awards on case No. 144/K/Pdt/2012 and case No. 175/PDT/2018/PT.DKI. In addition, it is also requiring the regulation conformity of international arbitral awards under Arbitration Law and international conventions in order to attain the legal certainty."

"Arbitrase merupakan lembaga penyelesaian sengketa yang sangat popular digunakan oleh kalangan pelaku bisnis. Namun, hal tersebut tidak menjamin bahwa suatu putusan dapat dilaksanakan pada suatu negara, karena terhalang oleh suatu ketertiban umum negara tersebut. Kemajuan pesat di bidang bisnis baik nasional maupun internasional seperti penanaman modal (investment), kontrak kerjasama investasi asing (joint venture agreement), maupun alih teknologi (transfer of technology), dll. Memerlukan mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa hukum yang cepat dan tepat manakala terjadi perselisihan (misunderstanding) bahkan sengketa hukum (dispute). Permasalahan timbul ketika terjadi persengketaan dan memakai forum Arbitrase untuk penyelesaian sengketa tersebut. Persengketaan tersebut berkaitan dengan suatu putusan arbitrase yang akan dilaksanakan di Indonesia tidak dilakukan dengan itikad baik oleh pihak yang kalah. Hal ini tentu saja berkaitan langsung dengan apakah pengadilan negeri memiliki kewenangan terhadap suatu putusan arbitrase atau tidak. Kondisi dimana pihak yang bersengketa tentu menginginkan kepastian hukum, jika putusan tersebut ingin dilaksanakan namun terhalang oleh ketertiban umum dan hukum custom yang dimiliki oleh suatu negara. Maka dari itu terbentuklah 3 rumusan masalah yaitu: (1)Apakah Pengadilan Negeri memiliki kewenangan menolak dan melaksanakan putusan Arbitrase Internasional?; (2)Bagaimana kepastian hukum yang akan didapat oleh suatu pihak yang mempunyai sengketa di Indonesia dimana sengketa tersebut bersinggungan dengan  ketertiban umum?; (3) Haruskah ketertiban umum dirumuskan secara terperinci ?. Tipe penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil dari penelitan ini yakni kewenangan pengadilan ada pada sebelum dan sesudah proses arbitrase tersebut, namun dalam prosesnya, peran pengadilan mempunyai peran yang sangat penting. Kepastian hukum dalam hal-hal yang bersinggungan dengan ketertiban umum di Indonesia tidak dapat dipastikan karena ketertiban umum dinilai berubah-ubah. perumusan ketertiban umum secara terperinci dianggap penting, sehingga para investor yang akan berinvestasi mempunyai guide line dalam keuntungan dan kerugian yang akan didapat.

---

Arbitration is a very popular dispute resolution institution used by business people. However, this does not guarantee that a decision can be implemented in a country, because it is obstructed by a country's public order. Rapid progress in the field of business both nationally and internationally such as investment foreign investment cooperation contracts, and transfer of technology, etc. Requires a mechanism for resolving legal disputes quickly and precisely when disputes occur (misunderstanding) and even legal disputes. Problems arise when disputes occur and use the Arbitration forum to resolve the dispute. The dispute is related to an arbitration award that will be carried out in Indonesia not carried out in good faith by the losing party. This is of course directly related to whether the district court has authority over an arbitration award or not. Conditions where the parties to the dispute certainly want legal certainty, if the decision is to be implemented but is hindered by public order and custom law owned by a country.

Based on the description, 3 problem formulations are determined namely: (1) What is the authority of the court of an international arbitration award ?; (2) How will legal certainty be obtained by a party that has a dispute in Indonesia where the dispute is related to Public Policy ?; (3) Should the Public Policy be formulated in detail? The type of research used is normative legal research.

The result of this research is that the authority of the court is before and after the arbitration process, but in the process, the role of the court has a very important role. Legal certainty in matters pertaining to Public Policy in Indonesia cannot be ascertained because Public Policy is judged to be changing. The formulation of a detailed Public Policy is considered important, so that investors who will invest have a guide line in the profits and losses that will be obtained."

"Indonesia has been being a member of the 1958 New York Convention since 1981, namely upon issuance of the Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981. Priori to talkiing intó force of the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic Indonesìa No. 1 of .1990 on Procedures for EnforcemenL of Foreign Arbit awards, there were still constrâints lor the foreign Business plâyers in terìr enforcement of arbitral awards in lndonesia, The Supreme Court âs the higest judicial institution in lndonesia holds that internationâl arbitral awards can not be enforced ill lndonesja. After the Indonesian Supreme Court has issued such a regulation, enforcement of international arbitral awards in Indonesia began to be enforceable, because the procedural law that governs the for execution of arbitral awards has been clear ln order to regulâte the international arbitral award problems in the hjerarchy of legislation, on October 12, 1999, the Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution was promulgated. In that Law there is a special part discussing the International Arbitration. This study Examines the development of international arbitral award enforcement in lndonesia before Indonesia becoming member of the .1958 New York Convention, until nowâdays, by analyzing the international arbitral awards that were decìded by the Supreme Court of the Republic of lndonesia after the coming into effect of the Arbitration Law."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai upaya hukum yang dilakukan oleh para pihak yang berkepentingan dalam arbitrase. Upaya hukum tersebut dapat terbagi dalam dua yaitu melaksanakan atau memintakan pembatalannya. Pelaksanaan atau pembatalan tersebut diajukan kepada pengadilan sesuai dengan yurisdiksinya. Namun karena biasanya para pihak dalam arbitrase berbeda kebangsaan maka sulit untuk menetapkan pengadilan mana yang berwenang untuk melaksanakan atau membatalkan suatu putusan.Oleh karena latar belakang tersebut di atas, maka pokok permasalahan dalam tesis ini adalah bagaimana Bagaimanakah pengadilan di negara lain menyingkapi putusan ICC dan Bagaimanakah sikap pengadilan Indonesia atas putusan ICC dalam kasus PT. Lirik Petroleum dengan PT. Pertamina (Persero) dan PT. Pertamina EP. Permasalahan tersebut dibahas menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif, sehingga menghasilkan kesimpulan bahwa menurut pengadilan di Negara Singapura, Inggris, dan Kanada putusan ICC yang diambil dinegara tersebut merupakan putusan arbitrase nasional sedangkan menurut pengadilan di Negara Cina dan Indonesia putusan ICC tersebut merupakan putusan arbitrase internasional.

---

This thesis discusses about the legal effort of interested party in arbitration. The legal effort can be divide into two option recognition or challenge the arbitral award. For recognition or challenge the arbitral award, the parties should apply their application to the court that has the jurisdiction. And because of the different nationality of the parties, deciding which court has the jurisdiction is even harder.

From the above background, this thesis concerns how the view of the court in other states regarding ICC arbitral award and how the view of Indonesian court regarding ICC arbitral award in the case of PT. Lirik Petroleum against PT. Pertamina (Persero) and PT. Pertamina EP. These problems are discussed using normative legal research methods so as to produce a conclusion that according to the court in Singapore, United Kingdom, and Canada ICC arbitral award rendered in such country should be deem as domestic award meanwhile the court in China and Indonesian deem such an award as international award."

"ABSTRAK Tesis ini membahas upaya hukum peninjauan kembali terhadap putusan pembatalan putusan arbitrase dan bagaimana pandangan hakim terhadap upaya hukum tersebut. Untuk mengkaji permasalahan dalan tesis ini penulis menggunakan sengketa antara PT. Bumigas Energi dan PT. Geo Dipa Energi serta putusan arbitrase 271/XI/ARB-BANI/2007. PT. Bumigas Energi telah melakukan dua kali upaya upaya pembatalkan putusan arbitrase di Pengadilan Negeri. Melalui putusan Nomor 586 K/Pdt.Sus/2012 permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase yang diajukan oleh PT. Bumigas Engergi dikabukan. Dalam putusan ini Mahkamah Agung dalam tingkat banding ini membatalkan Putusan Arbitrase Badan Arbitrase Nasionam Indonesia tanggal 11 Juli 2008 Nomor 271/XI/ARB-BANI/2007. Menanggapi putusan pembatalan putusan arbitrase oleh Mahkamah Agung, PT. Geo Dipa Energi mengajukan permohonan peninjauan kembali sebanyak dua kali. Pada peninjauan kembali pertama, Mahkamah Agung menolak permohonan tersebut sedangkan dalam permohonan peninjauan kembali kedua Mahkamah Agung memutuskan untuk tidak diterimanya permohonan tersebut. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan teori hukum positivisme. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif yuridis, penulis berusaha mencari jawaban atas permasalahan yang ada dalam tesis ini. Adanya perbedaan pendapat antara SEMA Nomor 7 Tahun 2012 dengan putusan hakim Mahkamah Agung mengenai peninjauan kembali putusan pembatalan putusan arbitrase memberikan ketidakpastian kepada pihak pencari keadilan.

---

ABSTRACT

This thesis discusses the efforts of law review against the ruling of the annulment of the award and how the views of judges against the efforts of the law. To review the problems in this thesis the author uses the dispute between PT Bumigas Energi and PT. Geo Dipa Energi as well as arbitration verdict 271/XI/ARB-BANI/2007. PT Bumigas Energy has been doing twice the effort an attempt pembatalkan award in the District Court. Through the verdict Number 586 K/Pdt. Sus/2012 petition for annulment of the arbitration ruling filed by PT.Bumigas Engergi dikabukan. In this ruling the Supreme Court in this appeal the arbitration Ruling of the BANI on July 11, 2008 Number 271/XI/ARB-BANI/2007. Responding to the verdict of annulment of the arbitration ruling by the Supreme Court, PT. Geo Dipa Energi apply for review twice. In the first review, the Supreme Court rejected the petition while in the second the review petition in the Supreme Court decide not to the admissibility of the petition. In this study, the author uses the theory of legal positivism. By using the juridical normative legal research methods, authors trying to find answers to the problems that exist in this thesis. The existence of a difference of opinion between SEMA Number 7 year 2012 regarding ruling of Supreme Court Justices regarding a review of the cancellation of the arbitration ruling gave the verdict of uncertainty to any seeker of Justice."

"Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (“UU APS”), telah mengatur mengenai alasan yang dapat digunakan untuk mengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan Arbitrase. Permohonan pembatalan putusan ini diajukan di Pengadilan Negeri. UU APS tidak memberikan pembedaan terhadap pembatalan baik terhadap putusan arbitrase nasional maupun pembatalan atas putusan arbitrase internasional. Faktanya, pengaturan mengenai alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase dalam UU APS terdapat ketidakharmonisan aturan yang menimbulkan multitafsir. Pasal 70 UU APS menggunakan frase “sebagai berikut” yang apabila diartikan maka ketentuan mengenai alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase adalah bersifat limitatif. Disisi lain dalam Penjelasan Umum Bab VII UU APS menggunakan frase “antara lain” yang apabila ditafsirkan maka alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase adalah bersifat tidak limitatif. Ketidakharmonisan dalam pengaturan mengenai pembatalan putusan arbitrase dalam UU APS ini tentunya menimbulkan ketidakpastian. Terhadap hal tersebut, Mahkamah Agung telah mengeluarkan SEMA No. 7 Tahun 2012. SEMA tersebut pada pokoknya menyatakan bahwa ketentuan mengenai alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase dalam Pasal 70 UU APS tidak dapat disimpangi. Dengan demikian ketentuan dalam Pasal 70 UU APS bersifat limitatif. Meskipun telah terdapat SEMA, ternyata ketentuan SEMA masih belum banyak dipergunakan dan dipertimbangkan oleh hakim pengadilan dalam memeriksa dan memutus pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Masih terdapat putusan yang mengabulkan pembatalan putusan arbitrase di luar dari ketentuan Pasal 70 UU APS yang bersifat limitatif. Walaupun berlaku dan mempunyai kekuatan mengikat, namun SEMA hanya bersifat pedoman, sehingga hakim berpendapat bahwa ketentuan SEMA dapat di simpangi. Hal tersebut juga menyebabkan ketidakseragaman pada putusan pengadilan yang memutus tentang alasan yang dapat digunakan untuk mengajukan pembatalan putusan arbitrase di Indonesia.

---

Indonesian Law Number 30 year 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“UU APS”). The law regulates the reasons that can be used to file an application for the annulment of an arbitration decision, which is submitted to the District Court. UU APS does not differentiate between the annulment of national arbitration decisions and the annulment of international arbitration decisions. In fact, there is inconsistency in the regulation of the reasons for the annulment of arbitration decisions in the UU APS, leading to multiple interpretations. Article 70 UU APS uses the phrase "sebagai berikut" (as follows), which, when interpreted, implies that the provisions regarding the grounds for annulment of arbitration decisions are restrictive. On the other hand, in the General Explanation of Chapter VII of the UU APS, the phrase "antara lain" (among other things) is used, implying that the grounds for annulment of arbitration decisions are non-restrictive. The inconsistency in the regulation of the annulment of arbitration decisions in the UU APS undoubtedly creates uncertainty. In response to this, the Supreme Court issued Regulation No. 7 of 2012 (SEMA No. 7 Tahun 2012). This regulation essentially states that the provisions regarding the grounds for annulment of arbitration decisions in Article 70 of the UU APS cannot be deviated from. Thus, the provisions in Article 70 of the UU APS are restrictive. Despite the existence of SEMA, it appears that its provisions are not widely used and considered by court judges in examining and deciding on the annulment of arbitration decisions. There are still decisions that grant annulment of arbitration decisions outside the restrictive provisions of Article 70 of the UU APS. Although SEMA is valid and binding, it is considered a guideline, so judges believe that its provisions can be deviated from. This also causes inconsistency in court decisions regarding the reasons that can be used to file for the annulment of arbitration decisions in Indonesia."