Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum
Lia Amalia
Universitas Buana Perjuangan Karawang
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
TINJAUAN YURIDIS PEMBATALAN PUTUSAN ARBITRASE OLEH PENGADILAN NEGERI DITINJAU DARI UU NO 30 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG ARBITRASE DAN ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA (Studi Kasus Perkara Nomor 861/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2023/PN.Jkt.Brt) Lia Amalia; Mela Mustika; Muhamad Abas; Saprudin
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 24 No. 1 (2025): Pena Justisia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v24i2.6195

Abstract

Arbitration as an alternative to resolving business disputes offers a fast, confidential, and final process, but this finality is limited by the provisions of Law Number 30 of 1999 which allows for cancellation under certain conditions. This normative legal research analyzes the legal basis for the cancellation of an arbitration award through a case study of the West Jakarta District Court Decision Number 861/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2023/PN.Jkt.Brt. The results of the study show that cancellation is only permitted based on three limiting reasons in Article 70 of the Arbitration Law. In the case of PT Talkindo Selaksa Anugrah, the judge annulled the BANI decision based on the discovery of important hidden documents and the existence of trickery. The judge's considerations reflect the balance between maintaining the principle of finality of arbitration and upholding substantive justice, although the standard of proof applied is more flexible than international standards. The annulment of an arbitration award must still be seen as an extraordinary corrective mechanism that is applied strictly, without sacrificing the integrity of the arbitration process, because finality should not protect dishonest practices in dispute resolution.
Co-Authors Mela Mustika Muhamad Abas Saprudin