The Government’s proxy asking that the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution be delayed, Tuesday (9/24/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing for the petition filed by Togi M. P. Pangaribuan, advocate and law lecturer of Universitas Indonesia, on Tuesday, September 24, 2024. However, the Government’s proxy and the House of Representatives (DPR) stated that they were not prepared to testify at the hearing for case No. 100/PUU-XXII/2024 on Article 1 point (9) of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration/AAPS Law).
“The Government will attend the next hearing as the Court’s Registrar’s Office informed that the Government had not prepared its testimony. Therefore, the Court will give an opportunity so that the testimony will not be postponed again. The next hearing will take place on Monday, October 14, 2024 at 13:30 WIB,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced at the hearing in the plenary courtroom.
Also read:
Questioning the Unclear Definition of Territoriality of National and International Arbitration Awards
Advocate Clarifies Arguments of the Unclear Definition of Territoriality of National and International Arbitration Awards
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, August 7, the Petitioner argued that Article 1 point (9) of the AAPS Law, especially the phrase “which according to the provisions of the law of the Republic of Indonesia is considered an international arbitration award” is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He experienced actual and specific constitutional losses in several aspects, including in terms of his professions as a lecturer, where he has an obligation to teach arbitration law in theory and practice to students accurately, and as an advocate, where he is obliged to provide legal services in the form of litigation services and advice to clients.
The legal uncertainty in the AAPS Law has hindered the Petitioner from carrying out both professions. This is because it mixes up narrow and broad territorial concepts, so the Petitioner has difficulty determining which ones are classified as national arbitration awards and international arbitration awards based on Article 1 paragraph (9) of the AAPS Law.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fauzan Febriyan
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.
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 | 13:55 WIB 150