Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
2.144
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Masalah-Masalah Hukum LAW REFORM Jurnal IUS (Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan) PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Journal of SouthEast Asian Human Rights Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Undang: Jurnal Hukum Pancasila and Law Review Indonesia Law Review (ILREV) Pandecta : Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum (Research Law Journal) Journal of Private and Commercial Law BANI Arbitration and Law Journal
Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit
Unknown Affiliation
Arts Humanities Economics, Econometrics & Finance Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 14 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 14 Documents
Search

 1   2 
Dampak dari Putusan No. 15/PUU-XII/2014 terhadap Eksistensi Arbitrase di Indonesia: Menguji Kembali Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Rossdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit
BANI Arbitration and Law Journal Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024): BANI Arbitration and Law Journal, Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2024
Publisher : Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.63400/balj.v1i1.1

Abstract

AbstrakSesuai dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014, Penjelasan Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 Republik Indonesia; sehingga tidak lagi memiliki kekuatan hukum yang mengikat. Substansi dari penjelasan tersebut mengharuskan pemohon yang berusaha membatalkan putusan arbitrase untuk terlebih dahulu membuktikan alasan pengajuan mereka di Pengadilan Negeri. Berdasarkan putusan ini, syarat tersebut tidak lagi ada, sehingga mempermudah proses pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Di sisi lain, keberadaan Pasal 70 undang-undang itu sendiri masih menjadi perdebatan. Dalam perkembangannya, pasal ini memberikan berbagai implikasi hukum yang negatif bagi lembaga penyelesaian sengketa di luar pengadilan, termasuk lembaga arbitrase, serta pihak-pihak yang menyelesaikan sengketa melalui arbitrase. Meskipun demikian, mekanisme ini secara normatif bertujuan untuk mengoreksi kesalahan formal dalam putusan arbitrase. Tulisan ini berusaha menggambarkan rasionalisasi di balik perlunya mempertahankan atau menghilangkan mekanisme tersebut dengan meninjau kembali Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014. Sebagai kesimpulan di akhir artikel, disarankan agar Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa perlu dihilangkan atau setidaknya dibatasi secara ketat. AbstractPursuant to Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XII/2014, the Elucidation of Article 70 of the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Law was contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; thus, it no longer had binding legal force. The substance of the elucidation required applicants attempting to annul an arbitral award to first prove the grounds for their application before the District Court. According to this decision, such a requirement did not longer exist, thus it would be easier to annull an arbitral award. On the other hand, the existence of Article 70 of the law itself is still debatable. In its development, this article has provided various legal implications that have negative values for dispute resolution institutions outside the court, including arbitration institutions, as well as parties resolving their disputes through arbitration. Nonetheless, this mechanism is intended normatively to correct formal errors in an arbitral award. This paper attempts to describe the rationalization behind the need to maintain or eliminate such a mechanism by re-examining Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XII/2014. As a resolution at the end of the article, it is Article 70 of the Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that should need to be eliminated or at least strictly limited.
Isu-Isu Prinsipil dalam Pelaksanaan (secara paksa) Putusan Arbitrase Nasional di Indonesia Rossdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit; Sirait, Melinda Yunita L.
BANI Arbitration and Law Journal Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): BANI Arbitration and Law Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1, October 2025
Publisher : Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.63400/balj.v2i1.23

Abstract

AbstrakSalah satu tolak ukur efektivitas dari proses arbitrase adalah terlaksananya putusan arbitrase. Pelaksanaan memang dapat didistingsikan menjadi dua, yaitu: (1) pelaksanaan secara sukarela; dan (2) pelaksanaan secara paksa yang biasa disebut dengan eksekusi melalui Pengadilan Negeri. Akan tetapi, terdapat berbagai karakteristik fundamental dari arbitrase yang tidak terjaga dari pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase secara paksa, seperti tidak terjaganya prinsip iktikad baik (good faith) dalam arbitrase dan inefektivitas karakteristik final and binding dari putusan arbitrase. Pun demikian, pada faktanya, berdasarkan data yang diolah secara mandiri oleh BANI Arbitration Centre sampai tahun 2023, tetap terdapat realitas adanya putusan yang tidak dilaksanakan secara sukarela meskipun hanya sekitar 27-30%. Di samping itu, di dalam UU No. 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, terdapat juga isu terkait dengan eksekusi putusan arbitrase nasional di Indonesia, yaitu adanya frasa bahwa putusan arbitrase hanya dapat dilaksanakan bilamana putusan tersebut didaftarkan ke Pengadilan Negeri, dan terbukanya peluang penolakan permohonan eksekusi putusan arbitrase nasional melalui Pengadilan Negeri oleh Ketua Pengadilan Negeri yang berwenang atas dasar kesusilaan dan ketertiban umum. Berbagai tulisan yang telah membahas mengenai pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase nasional di Indonesia belum menyoroti aspek adanya berbagai karakteristik fundamental tersebut yang tidak terjaga dari tidak dilaksanakannya putusan arbitrase secara sukarela serta beberapa isu lainnya. Tulisan ini tidak hendak menghilangkan mekanisme eksekusi, tetapi mendorong bahwa putusan arbitrase seharusnya dilaksanakan secara sukarela. Abstract One measure of the effectiveness of the arbitration process is the implementation of the arbitration award; without implementation, the arbitration process becomes futile. It can be distinguished in two forms, namely voluntary compliance and forced enforcement, commonly referred to as execution (“eksekusi”) through the District Court. In fact, based on data independently processed by BANI Arbitration Centre until 2023, around 27-30% of awards are not voluntarily complied; although the number of awards voluntarily complied still exceeds those forced. Additionally, there are various normative issues related to the enforcement of national arbitration awards, namely: (1) the obligation to register national arbitration awards to the District Court within a maximum period of 30 days for the award to be enforceable, giving the impression that arbitration awards can only be enforced after registration with the District Court; and (2) the possibility of the District Court Chief Justice rejecting the application for the execution of national arbitration awards on the grounds of morality and public order. This paper observes that various fundamental characteristics of arbitration are compromised by these issues, such as the undermining of the principle of trust in arbitration and the ineffectiveness of the final and binding nature of arbitration awards. Various writings on the enforcement of national arbitration awards in Indonesia have yet to highlight the aspect of these fundamental characteristics being compromised. The resolution of this issue has two dimensions: a normative dimension and an actor dimension, particularly involving the parties and the arbitrators.
Participation of Trans-Women in Females' Sports Competitions: Fairness vs. Rights to Participating in Sports? Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit; Carofin, Valentino Rafael; Gloria, Stefanie; Tjiang, Alvin
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 14, No. 3
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

A trans-woman is someone who is biologically male at birth and then undergoes gender-affirming surgery, which can include genital feminization surgery, or may not undergo gender-affirming surgery but undergoes other therapies such as cross-sex hormone therapy or other physical organ surgeries apart from genital surgery, in order to be identified as a woman. The participation of trans-women in females' sports has sparked a debate, addressing issues of fairness on one side and transgender rights to participate in sports on the other. The fairness argument is based on the physical advantages that males have when competing against females. Generally, male athletes will outperform female athletes in most sports. On the other hand, the prohibition of trans-women from participating in females' sports is considered discriminatory and not respecting transgender individuals' right to participate in sports. This issue continues to be discussed because many female athletes complain about the presence of trans-women athletes in their competitions, as even rigorous training may not enable them to become champions. On the other hand, what solutions can be offered by the state to trans-women who want to become athletes? Through exploration in this article, the answer to this problem cannot be a gray area or middle ground but rather a choice between protecting women's rights in sports to excel or allowing trans-women the right to compete in the women's category; only one can be chosen. Alternatively, another option is to allow trans-women to compete in sports but in the new category, namely transgender category.
The Interconnection Between Arbitration and Commercial Courts: Scenarios, Issues, and A Proposal Roosdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit; Salsabila, Mayta Ciara
Journal of Private and Commercial Law Vol. 9 No. 1 (2025): Journal of Private and Commercial Law
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/jpcl.v9i1.7833

Abstract

There is a possibility that parties who have put an arbitration clause in their agreement may still bring bankruptcy or suspension of debt payment obligations before the Commercial Court (“Pengadilan Niaga”). In another scenario (Scenario 2), this situation can also—and often does—occur due to a third party, not bound by the arbitration clause, filing a bankruptcy petition against one of the parties. This article examines two key aspects when both forums are utilized: (1) the interrelation between these two forums in the context of the consequences of their respective decisions on each other; and (2) the conflicting principles, such as confidentiality and trust in arbitration versus public openness and distrust in Pengadilan Niaga. When one party ultimately submits a bankruptcy case to Pengadilan Niaga, the confidentiality of the dispute is compromised, and mutual trust is eroded. However, this reality is not strong enough to justify eliminating the potential overlap between arbitration and Pengadilan Niaga, given that scenarios where a third party files a bankruptcy petition can also occur. In such a scenario, the issue extends beyond the mere clash of principles. A proper framework to regulate the intersection between arbitration and Pengadilan Niaga needs to be formulated, taking into account the two scenarios that may arise.
Co-Authors Al Bone, Nayla Amalia Alfarizy, Ahmad Boasrifa, Kimberly Natali Carofin, Valentino Rafael Gloria, Stefanie Laksmi Prabhaswari, Amaraduhita Lasmaida Sirait, Melinda Yunita Manurung, Stephen Joy Herald Putra, Edmond Wangtri Putra, M. Irfan Dwi Putri Subiyanto, Maria Jasmine Roosdiono, Anangga W. Rossdiono, Anangga W. Rusdiana, Rofy Candra Salsabila, Mayta Ciara Sirait, Melinda Yunita L. Sirait, Melinda Yunita Lasmaida Tjiang, Alvin Yuubina, Venitta