Diding Jalaludin (Petitioner) at a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration, Monday (2/5/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law) on Monday, February 5, 2024. Diding Jalaludin, the Petitioner of case No. 4/PUU-XXII/2024, attended the second hearing in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms to explain the revisions to the petition. This includes the reduction of the object from four articles—Article 65, Article 66 letter d, Article 67 paragraph (2), and Article 68 paragraphs (1) and (2)—to only two—Article 65 and Article 67 paragraph (2).

“[I] have also revised the elaboration of the loss of my constitutional rights, because lack of mandate to the Central Jakarta District Court to notify the registration of international arbitration award has harmed [my] rights as a legal counsel for the interested parties. Thus, this is in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” the Petitioner said before Constitutional Justices Anwar Usman, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and M. Guntur Hamzah in the plenary courtroom.

Also read: Advocate Challenges Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, January 23, the Petitioner, who appeared before the Court without legal counsel, revealed that he was exploring an agreement with a foreign company involved in an international arbitration case. The case, which it won, had been ruled by an arbitration body in a foreign arbitration agency. He received information from said company that the arbitration award had been registered with the Central Jakarta District Court, which he was happy about. Therefore, he wishes that it is executed in Indonesia soon. Nevertheless, he was surprised and wondered how the foreign company had been aware that the international arbitration award had been registered when there is no provision in the Arbitration Law stipulating that the Central Jakarta District Court is obliged to notify the parties regarding the registration of international arbitration award.

He believes that parties involved in a case must be properly notified of every action or result of an action taken by one of them so that they are aware and can exercise legal rights or obligations from the action or result of the action. The obligation to notify all parties falls to the petitioner who will make a request for arbitration. They are obliged to notify the respondent of his intention. This is regulated in Article 8 paragraph (1) of the Arbitration Law.

The Petitioner argues that the absence of rules requiring the Central Jakarta District Court to notify the registration of an international arbitration award, which should be contained in Article 65 of the Arbitration Law, has harmed his constitutional rights as a legal representative of the parties concerned, who has the right to fair legal certainty and equality before the law as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and the right to obtain information as stipulated in Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution.

In the petitums, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 66 letter d unconstitutional and not legally binding. Similarly, he requests that the Court declare Article 67 paragraph (2) unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Chairman of the District Court may accept an application of the recognition and execution of an International Arbitration Award by ordering the enforcement/execution of the Award or rejecting the application by taking into account Article 66 of this Law.”

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---