Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

PATOLOGI DALAM ARBITRASE INDONESIA: KETENTUAN PEMBATALAN PUTUSAN ARBITRASE DALAM PASAL 70 UU No. 30/1999 Sujayadi Sujayadi
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol 1, No 2 (2015): Juli-Desember 2015
Publisher : Departemen Hukum Perdata

Putusan arbitrase bersifat final dan mengikat, meskipun demikian putusan arbitrase masih dapat dimohonkan pembatalan kepada pengadilan. Permohonan pembatalan ini untuk mengakomodir prinsip keadilan dan hanya dimungkinkan apabila putusan arbitrase terbukti memenuhi alasan pembatalan sebagaimana diatur dan dibatasi di dalam undang-undang. UU No. 30/1999 sebagai hukum arbitrase (lex arbitri) Indonesia telah menentukan tiga alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase secara alternatif di dalam Pasal 70. Akan tetapi ketentuan tersebut menimbulkan permasalahan karena di dalam bagian Penjelasan Umum alinea ke-18 yang menggunakan frase “antara lain”, telah mengakibatkan banyak pihak menafsirkan bahwa alasan pembatalan putusan tidak terbatas pada tiga alasan yang disebutkan dalam Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999. Selain itu, Penjelasan Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999 menyaratkan bahwa permohonan pembatalan harus dibuktikan dengan putusan pengadilan terlebih dahulu yang membuktikan adanya pelanggaran sebagai alasan pembatalan. Prinsip universal yang berlaku dalam hukum arbitrase negara-negara modern menunjukkan bahwa alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase selalu dibatasi oleh undang-undang. Demikian pula Mahkamah Agung RI dalam putusan-putusannya terkait dengan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase sebagian besar telah berpendapat bahwa alasan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase bersifat limitatif; dan secara formil permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase harus disertai dengan putusan pengadilan yang membuktikan adanya alasan pembatalan tersebut. Namun syarat formil tersebut telah dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi karena pengaturannya di dalam Penjelasan Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999 telah melahirkan norma baru yang menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum sehingga bertentangan dengan UUD 1945.Kata kunci: pembatalan, putusan arbitrase

PATOLOGI DALAM ARBITRASE INDONESIA: KETENTUAN PEMBATALAN PUTUSAN ARBITRASE DALAM PASAL 70 UU No. 30/1999 Sujayadi Sujayadi
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol 1, No 2 (2015): Juli-Desember 2015
Publisher : Departemen Hukum Perdata

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/jhaper.v1i2.19

Putusan arbitrase bersifat final dan mengikat, meskipun demikian putusan arbitrase masih dapat dimohonkan pembatalan kepada pengadilan. Permohonan pembatalan ini untuk mengakomodir prinsip keadilan dan hanya dimungkinkan apabila putusan arbitrase terbukti memenuhi alasan pembatalan sebagaimana diatur dan dibatasi di dalam undang-undang. UU No. 30/1999 sebagai hukum arbitrase (lex arbitri) Indonesia telah menentukan tiga alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase secara alternatif di dalam Pasal 70. Akan tetapi ketentuan tersebut menimbulkan permasalahan karena di dalam bagian Penjelasan Umum alinea ke-18 yang menggunakan frase “antara lain”, telah mengakibatkan banyak pihak menafsirkan bahwa alasan pembatalan putusan tidak terbatas pada tiga alasan yang disebutkan dalam Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999. Selain itu, Penjelasan Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999 menyaratkan bahwa permohonan pembatalan harus dibuktikan dengan putusan pengadilan terlebih dahulu yang membuktikan adanya pelanggaran sebagai alasan pembatalan. Prinsip universal yang berlaku dalam hukum arbitrase negara-negara modern menunjukkan bahwa alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase selalu dibatasi oleh undang-undang. Demikian pula Mahkamah Agung RI dalam putusan-putusannya terkait dengan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase sebagian besar telah berpendapat bahwa alasan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase bersifat limitatif; dan secara formil permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase harus disertai dengan putusan pengadilan yang membuktikan adanya alasan pembatalan tersebut. Namun syarat formil tersebut telah dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi karena pengaturannya di dalam Penjelasan Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999 telah melahirkan norma baru yang menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum sehingga bertentangan dengan UUD 1945.Kata kunci: pembatalan, putusan arbitrase

PELAKSANAAN SITA JAMINAN DALAM HUKUM ACARA ARBITRASE Sujayadi Sujayadi; Yuniarti Yuniarti
Yuridika Vol. 25 No. 3 (2010): Volume 25 Nomor 3 September 2010
Publisher : Universitas Airlangga

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties to come to an agreement short of litigation. Despite historic resistance to ADR by many popular parties and their advocates, some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation. The rising popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to have greater control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute. In Indonesia based on the Law No. 30/1999 concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution and Arbitration, ADR is interpreted as alternative to adjudication as it is reflected in the title of the Law No. 30/1999. Based on article 32 the collateral forclosure is enable to be done. The procedure of this were adopting the procedure of the collateral forclosure in civil court.

INTERACTION BETWEEN THE SETTING ASIDE OF AN AWARD AND LEAVE FOR ENFORCEMENT Sujayadi Sujayadi
Yuridika Vol. 30 No. 2 (2015): Volume 30 No 2 Mei 2015
Publisher : Universitas Airlangga

Karaha Bodas case is a notorious case which demonstrates how is unpredictable of the Indonesian court’s practice when facing cases related to arbitration. This case shows various aberrations of the principles that have been commonly accepted in international commercial arbitration but distorted in practice, especially in Indonesia, therefore many experts in the field of international commercial arbitration always mention this case as a “pathology” in international commercial arbitration.[1] This article will examine the interaction between the attempt to set aside of the award, while on the other hand the successful party requests for enforcement in other jurisdictions. The discussion will be focused on the standings of the U.S. courts toward the annulment proceeding in and the judgement of the District Court of Central Jakarta. The findings in this article show that the U.S. courts – like any other jurisdictions – disobeyed the judgement of the annulment which was rendered by Indonesian court, because Indonesian courts were the secondary jurisdiction. In addition, the courts in which the enforcement sought may have discretion whether they will or will not enforce an award which has been vacated in the country of origin. The discretion is guaranteed under the New York Convention 1958.

BINDING EFFECT OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE TO THIRD PARTIES: PRIVITY OF CONTRACT DOCTRINE Vs. PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL Y Sogar Simamora; Sujayadi Sujayadi; Yuniarti Yuniarti
Yuridika Vol. 33 No. 1 (2018): Volume 33 No 1 January 2018
Publisher : Universitas Airlangga

The arbitration agreement is the legal basis for the arbitration forum to examine and adjudicate the dispute which arose from a private relationship where the parties agree to settle the dispute in arbitration forum. As an agreement, the arbitration agreement still applies the principles of contract, including the principle of privity of contract. In the doctrine of privity of contract, an agreement is only binding and have legal effect only to the parties, the agreement in principle, cannot provide profit or loss to a third party. In the arbitration agreement, only the parties are bound by the arbitration agreement that can become parties to the case investigation. However, in the development of arbitration practice also shows that a third party, not a signatory to the arbitration agreement can be held accountable through an examination of the arbitration case. Such a situation is possible if the third party is resident as a holding company or shareholder of a limited liability company, in which the limited liability company is bound by an arbitration agreement, and the holding company or shareholder proven to perform actions through a subsidiary or a limited liability resulting harm the other party.

ACTOR SEQUITUR FORUM REI: A THEORITICAL STUDY Sujayadi, Sujayadi; Wijayanta, Tata; Herliana, Herliana
Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Vol. 7 No. 2 (2023): Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Volume 7 Number 2 March 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23920/jbmh.v7i2.896

The actor sequitur forum rei principle is the primary basis for determining the relative competence of civil courts in countries that adopt civil law systems. In this article, the role of the actor sequitur forum rei will be examined theoretically by analyzing theories related to personal jurisdiction, categorization of jurisdiction, and procedural justice theory. The analysis results indicate that actor sequitur forum rei is founded on the theory of power and is classified as a "connected" jurisdiction with a general nature, as jurisdiction is linked to the defendant's domicile. It enables the defendant to be sued in the forum of their domicile at any time and for any reason. Additionally, according to procedural justice theory, actor sequitur forum rei is shown to provide the defendant with protective aspects.

Title

Found 6 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 6 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 6 Documents
Search