Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Court’s legal opinions at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration, Tuesday (2/13/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) could not accept the material judicial review petition of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). It concluded that the Petitioner’s petition for case No. 4/PUU-XXII/2024 was obscure due to inconsistency between the reasons for the petition (posita) and what the Petitioner requested (petitums).

“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing in the plenary courtroom on Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman explained that the petitum had not given clear, sufficient arguments in the background. He instead explained empirical facts of his experience in handling international arbitration cases and then argued that the a quo articles were incomplete, imperfect, inaccurate, unsystematic, and causing ambiguity. Moreover, at the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner admitted that he did not provide reasons for the addition and amendment of the norms being challenged, specifically related to the recognition and implementation of the registration of international arbitration awards, in the posita.

Furthermore, in the petitums, the Petitioner requested that the Court reinterpreted Article 65 and Article 67 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 1999 without any clear elaboration of the contradiction between the norms petitioned and the 1945 Constitution. The Court asserted that in the posita, he should have explained the contradiction clearly and sufficiently, as it would serve as guidance of the direction of the petitums.

“In such a context, the petitums may not stray from the meaning and spirit of the posita,” Justice Anwar said.

Also read:

Advocate Challenges Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Advocate Reduces Object of Petition on Arbitration Law

The Petitioner argued that Article 65 of the Arbitration Law should have required the Central Jakarta District Court to notify the registration of an international arbitration award to the interested parties, in casu the arbitrator, the petitioner, the respondent, and/or their legal counsels. In his petitums, he requested that Article 65 of the Arbitration Law be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “(1) The authority to handle matters with respect to the registration, recognition, and enforcement of International Arbitration Awards shall be the Central Jakarta District Court; (2) Registration as referred to in paragraph (1) must attach: a. the original text or an authentic copy of the International Arbitration Award in accordance with the provisions on authentication of foreign documents and an official Indonesian translation of the text; b. the original text or an authentic copy of the agreement that is the basis for the International Arbitration Award in accordance with the provisions on authentication of foreign documents and an official Indonesian translation of the text; and c. a statement from the diplomatic representative of the Republic of Indonesia in the country where the International Arbitration Award was rendered, stating that the claimant’s country is bound to the Republic of Indonesia by bilateral or multilateral treaty on the recognition and execution of International Arbitration Award; (3) The Central Jakarta District Court shall issue a Deed of Registration of International Arbitration Award and deliver it to the Arbitrator, the Claimant, the Respondent, and/or their Attorneys no later than 14 (fourteen) days since the registration request is received; (4) A request for recognition and execution of an International Arbitration Award must attach a Letter of Request and a copy of the Deed of Registration of the International Arbitration Award.”

He also requested 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       : Mimi Kartika
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.

---