Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.778
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal SIGn Jurnal Hukum Journal of Law, Poliitic and Humanities
Wisatrioda, Bayu
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
Penyelesaian Sengketa Konstruksi melalui Negosiasi: Studi Kasus Perubahan AMDAL untuk Proyek Infrastruktur Ketenagalistrikan Sebastian, Reza Rafly; Wisatrioda, Bayu; Sami’an, S.; Hardjomuljadi, Sarwono
SIGn Jurnal Hukum Vol 6 No 2: Oktober 2024 - Maret 2025
Publisher : CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37276/sjh.v6i2.389

Abstract

Electricity infrastructure development in Indonesia often faces disputes that can potentially hinder project completion. One of the prominent issues in construction disputes is the amendment to the EIA, which is legally regulated by Law Number 32 of 2009 and Government Regulation Number 22 of 2021. This study employs a qualitative approach with a case study on Project X, an electricity transmission line construction project. Data were collected through literature review, document analysis, and participatory observation of the negotiation process. The results show that the Contractor’s financial constraints were the root of the dispute in Project X, which had implications for the delayed completion of the amendment to the EIA. Negotiation, as an ADR mechanism, played a crucial role in resolving this dispute. The success of the negotiation was supported by interactional dynamics characterized by effective communication, adaptive leadership, and comprehensive data support. This case study affirms the repositioning of negotiation as an effective dispute resolution mechanism in the construction context, especially involving environmental aspects. This research also emphasizes the importance of compliance with EIA regulations, especially Law Number 32 of 2009 and Government Regulation Number 22 of 2021, and highlights the need for effective communication strategies in the negotiation process to reach a sustainable agreement.
Penyelesaian Sengketa Konstruksi Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Air melalui Dewan Sengketa Tetap: Studi Kasus PLTA Asahan 3 Wisatrioda, Bayu; Sebastian, Reza Rafly; Sami’an, S.; Hardjomuljadi, Sarwono
SIGn Jurnal Hukum Vol 6 No 2: Oktober 2024 - Maret 2025
Publisher : CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37276/sjh.v6i2.392

Abstract

Electricity deficits in North Sumatra have hindered regional economic growth. The Asahan 3 HEPP, a national strategic project, was constructed to address this crisis. However, the Lot I Civil Works contract encountered complexities, resulting in 25 contractor claims within the first 20 months. This study analyzes the effectiveness of the SDB in resolving construction disputes at the Asahan 3 HEPP following a contract amendment. Employing a qualitative case study with a descriptive-analytical approach, the research examines the dynamics of dispute resolution before and after SDB activation. Primary data were gathered through interviews and observations, while secondary data were sourced from project documents and relevant legal literature. The findings indicate that the Engineer’s Determination proved ineffective, with only one claim resolved prior to the amendment. Contract Amendment No. 1 activated the SDB clause in accordance with the FIDIC Harmonised Edition 2010 General Conditions, replacing the previously implemented Ad-hoc mechanism. Post-amendment, the SDB, comprising independent experts, successfully issued five formal opinions, resolving all 25 contractor claims. This success was underpinned by the competence of the SDB members, their comprehensive understanding of the project, and the efficiency of the procedures. The study concludes that SDB activation was a strategic step that minimized conflict escalation. The SDB contributed significantly, effectively, and efficiently to the resolution of construction disputes at the Asahan 3 HEPP, aligning with Law Number 30 of 1999 and Law Number 2 of 2017.
The Efectiveness of Arbitration Mechanisms in The Resolution Of Construction Disputes In Indonesia: A Critical Analysis of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution Pakpahan, Alfredo; Saragih, Hidbar Roberta; Wisatrioda, Bayu; Laia, Kharisman; Hardjomuljadi, Sarwono; Sami’an, Sami’an
Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): (JLPH) Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities
Publisher : Dinasti Research

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.38035/jlph.v6i1.2619

Abstract

Disputes in construction projects often arise from divergent interpretations of contracts, delays in execution, and the complex dynamics of scope changes. Within this context, arbitration has long been regarded as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that promises efficiency, fairness, and confidentiality outside the court system. However, more than two decades after the enactment of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, its effectiveness in the construction sector remains subject to debate and scrutiny. This study critically examines the effectiveness of arbitration in resolving construction disputes under the legal framework established by Law No. 30 of 1999. Using a normative juridical approach, it reviews statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and field practices, complemented by interviews with legal practitioners and construction arbitrators. The findings reveal that while arbitration offers advantages in terms of confidentiality, procedural flexibility, and finality of decisions, its practical effectiveness is often constrained by high procedural costs, limited contractual understanding among parties, and challenges in enforcing arbitral awards through the courts. Furthermore, the substance of Law No. 30 of 1999 appears insufficiently adaptive to the technical and multidimensional nature of modern construction disputes. This research therefore recommends revising and modernizing the law particularly by strengthening the enforceability of arbitral awards, standardizing arbitration institutions, and enhancing the competence of human resources in construction law. Ultimately, arbitration should evolve as a mechanism not only for efficient dispute resolution but also for upholding justice, legal certainty, and professional integrity in Indonesia’s construction sector.
The Efectiveness of Arbitration Mechanisms in The Resolution Of Construction Disputes In Indonesia: A Critical Analysis of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution Pakpahan, Alfredo; Saragih, Hidbar Roberta; Wisatrioda, Bayu; Laia, Kharisman; Hardjomuljadi, Sarwono; Sami’an, Sami’an
Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): (JLPH) Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities
Publisher : Dinasti Research

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.38035/jlph.v6i1.2619

Abstract

Disputes in construction projects often arise from divergent interpretations of contracts, delays in execution, and the complex dynamics of scope changes. Within this context, arbitration has long been regarded as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that promises efficiency, fairness, and confidentiality outside the court system. However, more than two decades after the enactment of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, its effectiveness in the construction sector remains subject to debate and scrutiny. This study critically examines the effectiveness of arbitration in resolving construction disputes under the legal framework established by Law No. 30 of 1999. Using a normative juridical approach, it reviews statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and field practices, complemented by interviews with legal practitioners and construction arbitrators. The findings reveal that while arbitration offers advantages in terms of confidentiality, procedural flexibility, and finality of decisions, its practical effectiveness is often constrained by high procedural costs, limited contractual understanding among parties, and challenges in enforcing arbitral awards through the courts. Furthermore, the substance of Law No. 30 of 1999 appears insufficiently adaptive to the technical and multidimensional nature of modern construction disputes. This research therefore recommends revising and modernizing the law particularly by strengthening the enforceability of arbitral awards, standardizing arbitration institutions, and enhancing the competence of human resources in construction law. Ultimately, arbitration should evolve as a mechanism not only for efficient dispute resolution but also for upholding justice, legal certainty, and professional integrity in Indonesia’s construction sector.
Co-Authors Laia, Kharisman Pakpahan, Alfredo Sami’an, S. Sami’an, Sami’an Saragih, Hidbar Roberta Sarwono Hardjomuljadi Sebastian, Reza Rafly