<![CDATA[Indonesia's construction industry is characterized by a massive bargaining asymmetry between main contractors and subcontractors. Law No. 2 of 2017 on Construction Services (UUJK 2017) contains no explicit prohibition on unilateral risk-shifting clauses, creating a vacuum of norm systematically exploited through pay-when-paid clauses — a normative gap that has not been addressed through dogmatic-prescriptive legal analysis in existing literature. This study aims to construct a juridical prescription: whether such clauses are void by operation of law and how synchronization between the Construction Services Law and the Civil Code should properly function. This study employs a prescriptive-analytical normative legal method through comparative doctrinal analysis, integrating the statute approach, conceptual approach, and case approach applied to the Construction Services Law, the Civil Code, and Supreme Court Decision No. 463 K/Pdt/2019. This study finds that the normative vacuum in the Construction Services Law dogmatically nullifies the lex specialis exclusivity, rendering the good-faith principle (Article 1338(3)) and the reasonableness principle (Article 1339 of the Civil Code) imperatively applicable as a synchronization catalyst — a dogmatic obligation, not merely an interpretive option. Furthermore, the pay-when-paid clause manifests misbruik van omstandigheden and contains an unlawful cause (onrechtmatige oorzaak) under Article 1320(4) jo. Article 1337 of the Civil Code, rendering it void by operation of law (nietig van rechtswege). Through the doctrine of partial nullity (partiële nietigheid), only the risk-shifting clause is void, while the main contractor remains absolutely obligated to pay the subcontractor in full. These findings shift the paradigm of subcontractor protection from legislative recommendation to a directly enforceable dogmatic verdict under existing civil law mechanisms.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
