AHRP LB - Revisiting Arbitration Law A Critical Reflection on Constitutional Court Decision Number 100PUUXXII2024 and the Future of Law Number 30 of 1999.pdf

Legal Brief
Revisiting Arbitration Law: A Critical
Reflection on Constitutional Court Decision
Number 100/PUU-XXII/2024 and the
Future of Law Number 30 of 1999
May, 2025

DEVELOPMENT OF INDONESIAN ARBITRATION LAW
A H R P L e g a l B r i e f
1981
1990
2014
The first major step was taken when Indonesia ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (“NY Convention”) that signed in New York on 10 June 1981 and entered into force on
7 June 1959 through Presidential Decree Number 34 of 1981 on Ratification of the “Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards” (“PD 24/1981”).
As Indonesia has yet to enact its own arbitration law after PD 24/1981, there was a regulatory vacuum which the Supreme
Court tried to solve by issuing Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 1990 on Procedures for the Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards (“SC Reg. 1/1990”), which provides the procedural mechanism for enforcing foreign arbitral
awards in Indonesia. This regulation designates the Central Jakarta District Court as the competent authority to issue the
exequatur (enforcement order) and outlines the documents and formalities required, such as authenticated copies of the
award and a sworn Indonesian translation.
Issuance of Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 1990
Ratification of the New York Convention
Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/XII/2014
Issuance of Indonesian Arbitration Law
After 15 years of Law 30/1999’s enactment, on 23 October 2014, the Constitutional Court rendered Constitutional Court
Decision Number 15/XII/2014 (“CC Decision 15/2014”) on the constitutionality of Elucidation of Article 70 Law 30/1999
which principally stipulates that request for the annulment of arbitral award must be made at the latest 30 days counted after
the submission and registration of said arbitral award to the Registrar of District Court. Said elucidation is deemed
unconstitutional as the basis of request for the annulment of arbitral award is a final and legally binding court decision
which could not be obtained within 30 days of the civil claim submission.
A significant milestone was achieved on 12 August 1999 with the enactment of Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and
Alternative Dispute Resolution (“Law 30/1999”). This law established a modern and unified legal framework governing
both domestic and international arbitration in Indonesia. Key features include the principle of final and binding arbitral
awards, and provisions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
2023 Issuance of Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2023
As arbitration practices evolved globally, Indonesia sought to modernize arbitral award enforcement by streamlining the
exequatur process and accommodating the use of digital documents and translation through the issuance and enactment of
Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2023 on the Appointment or Arbitrator by Court, Repudiation Rights, Examination on
the Enforcement and Annulment Petition or Arbitral Awards (“SC Reg. 3/2023”).
There are 10 issues regulated under Law 30/1999, as follows:
General Provisions
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Requirements for Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrator, and Right to Challenge
Prevailing Procedural Law Before the Arbitral Tribunal
Arbitral Opinion and Award
Execution of Arbitral Award
Annulment of Arbitral Award
The End of Arbitrator’s Duty
Arbitral Fees
Transitional Provisions
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
After 26 years of its enactment, Law 30/1999 still prevails with the abovementioned content. Insofar, there have only been 2 changes made
by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia to Law 30/1999 through CC Decision 15/2014 and CC Decision 100/2024. This
legal brief shall discuss further the latest change made to Law 30/1999 through CC Decision 100/2024 and other legal prevailing issues in
Law 30/1999 as well as recommendations to Law 30/1999.
2025 Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-XXII/2024
On 3 January 2025, the Constitutional Court rendered Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-XXII/2024
(“CC Decision 100/2024”) after examining the constitutionality of Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999.
1999

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN LAW 30/1999
What is the Constitutional Issue in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999?
Petitioner Claims
The petitioner asked the Constitutional Court to declare the phrase “which under the laws of the Republic of Indonesia is deemed to be
an international arbitral award” in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 as contradictory the principle of legal certainty as stipulated in Article 28D
(1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted that an
international arbitral award is an award rendered by an arbitration institution or an individual arbitrator outside the jurisdiction of
the Republic of Indonesia.
Referring to the above, it is clear Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 combines two conflicting territorial concepts — a narrow territorial concept and a
broad territorial concept. This ambiguity creates legal uncertainty, violating the principle of legal certainty under Article 28D (1) of the
1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
In practice, this has led to inconsistent enforcement of international arbitral awards in Indonesia, as seen in cases such as:
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision Number 904 K/Pdt.Sus/2009 between PT Pertamina (Persero),
PT Pertamina EP v. PT Lirik Petroleum
In 2009, the Indonesian Supreme Court gave an interpretation to a BANI arbitral award involving PT Pertamina and PT Lirik Petroleum,
controversially classifying it as an international award based solely on the use of foreign currency and English language — despite all parties,
applicable law, and the subject matter being domestic — and as a result, the request for annulment of the arbitral award was rejected. In this
decision, the Supreme Court applied a broad territorial concept in defining what constitutes an international arbitral award.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision Number 219 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2016 between PT Indiratex Spindo v.
Everseason Enterprises Ltd.
In this case, PT Indiratex Spindo, an Indonesian company, filed a request to annul an arbitral award issued by the London Cotton Association in
favor of Everseason Enterprises Ltd. PT Indiratex Spindo submitted the annulment request of the London Cotton Association’s arbitral award to the
Supreme Court of Indonesia. However, the Supreme Court rejected the request on the grounds that an international arbitral award can only be
annulled in the country where the award was rendered, not in Indonesia. In this decision, the Supreme Court applied a narrow territorial concept
in defining what constitutes an international arbitral award.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision No. 674 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2014 between PT Daya Mandiri Resources and
PT Dayaindo Resources International Tbk v Suek AG
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Indonesia rejected the request to annul an arbitral award issued by the London Court of International Arbitration
(LCIA) in a case between PT Daya Mandiri Resources Indonesia and PT Dayaindo Resources International Tbk—both Indonesian companies—
and SUEK AG, a Swiss company, concerning a coal sales agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the annulment of an international
arbitral award must be filed in the country where the award was rendered. In this decision, the Supreme Court applied a narrow territorial
concept in defining what constitutes an international arbitral award.
Below is the complete quotation of Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999:
“International Arbitral Award refers to an award which is
01
02
03
On 12 July 2024, Togi M. P. Pangaribuan, S.H., LL.M. acting as a lecturer at Universitas Indonesia, filed for a constitutional review request
of Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999, on the grounds that the article has created legal uncertainty in distinguishing national arbitral award and
international arbitral award. His constitutional review request is the beginning of a legal process which resulted in the issuance of
CC Decision 100/2024.
Pg 17-26 CC Decision 100/2024
rendered by an arbitral institution or individual arbitrator
outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia,
or an award which is rendered by an arbitral institution or
individual arbitrator, of which, according to legal provisions
of the Republic of Indonesia, it shall be deemed as an
international arbitral award.”
Narrow territorial concept
An arbitral award is considered an international arbitral award if it is rendered
outside the territory of the country where recognition and enforcement are sought.
Broad territorial concept
An arbitral award may be considered an international arbitral award at the
discretion of the Panel of Judges, due to the lack of clear parameters or indicators
in the Elucidation of Law 30/1999.
P. 17-26 CC Decision 100/2024

COMPARISON OF INDONESIA’S INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL
AWARD WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
a The parties to an arbitration agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different states;
One of the following places is situated outside the state in which the parties have their places of business (i) the place of arbitration if determined in,
pursuant to, the arbitration agreement; (ii) any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed or
the place with which the subject-matter of the dispute is most closely connected; or
The parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.
b
c
This means that states are free to define the international element in an arbitral award. However, there should be a clear delimitation of the narrow and
broad territorial concepts. Art. 1 (3) UNCITRAL Model Law jo. p. 36 CC Decision 100/2024
International Arbitral Award in United Kingdom
Similar to Law 30/1999, arbitration in the United Kingdom is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 which does not adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Nonetheless, the implementation of NY Convention can be seen from Article 100 to 104 Arbitration Act 1996. Below are the relevant articles:
“NY Convention award shall be recognized as binding on the persons as between whom it was made and may accordingly be relied on by those
persons by way of defense, set-off or otherwise in any legal proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.”
Art. 101 (1) Arbitration Act 1996
Furthermore, the recognition or enforcement of a NY Convention award may be refused if the person against whom it is invoked proves, among others,
that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement,
with the law of the country in which, or under the law-of which, it was made. Art. 103 (e) Arbitration Act 1996 jo. p. 38 and pp. 53-54 CC Decision 100/2024
Article 101 (1) narrowly provides for NY Convention awards to be arbitral awards made outside the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This
means United Kingdom implements narrow territorial concept.
International Arbitral Award in U.S.A
“An arbitration agreement or arbitral award arising out a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered as commercial, including a
transaction, contract, or agreement, falls under the Convention. An agreement or award arising out of such a relationship which is entirely between
citizens of the United States shall be deemed not to fall under the Convention unless that relationship involves property located abroad,
envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. For the purpose of
this section a corporation is a citizen of the United States if it is incorporated or has its principal place of business in the United States.”
The definition of the international dimension of an arbitral award is set out in Article 202 Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is as follows:
The abovementioned shows the combination of narrow and broad territorial concepts with clear distinction between the two.
Firstly, according to UNCITRAL as a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly which has played a significant role in shaping
international trade law, there are several elements in determining international arbitral award, namely:
Section 202 FAA jo. p. 38 and pp. 56-58 CC Decision 100/2024
International Arbitral Award in Singapore
at least one of the parties to an arbitration agreement, at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, has its place of business in any state other
than Singapore;
An arbitration is considered International in the event of:
a
one of the following places is situated outside the State in which the parties have their place of business (i) the place of arbitration if determined in, or
pursuant to, the arbitration agreement; (ii) any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed or
the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected; or
b
the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.
c
Singapore provides limitations or parameters on non-domestic international arbitral awards in the International Arbitration Act 1994 (“Arbitration Act
1994”). These limitations also draw from Article 1 (3) UNCITRAL Model Law.
Art. 5 (1) Arbitration Act 1994 jo. p. 38 and pp. 56-58 CC Decision 100/2024
Note: In CC Decision 100/2024, the petitioner submitted several countries for comparison, including Switzerland, Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom, Australia, United
States, and Singapore. However, this brief is limited in scope to United Kingdom, United States, and Singapore. For the complete comparative analysis, please refer to
page 36 to 38 CC Decision 100/2024.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AND
JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
In the absence of other provisions governing the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards outside of Law 30/1999, the applicable guidelines,
among others, shall be the provisions of Article 66 and 67 Law 30/1999. However, this legal framework does not automatically negate the concept of nationality,
which requires further regulation regarding the parameters of international arbitral awards in the future.
In this regard, it is the responsibility of the legislature to define such parameters, drawing upon both national and international legal references. Whatever
parameters are chosen to categorize an international arbitral award, they must not conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the values
of Pancasila.
01 CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGE OPINION
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S RULING
02
The Constitutional Court partially granted the petitioner’s request. In its decision, the Constitutional Court declared that the word “deemed” in Article 1 (9) Law
30/1999 is inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and therefore has no binding legal force. As a consequence, Article 1 (9) Law
30/1999 shall henceforth be read in its entirety as follows: “An international arbitral award is an award rendered by an arbitral institution or individual
arbitrator outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia, or an award rendered by an arbitral institution or individual arbitrator which, under
the laws of the Republic of Indonesia, is considered an international arbitral award.”
The Court instructed that this decision be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia and rejected the remainder of the petitioner’s claims.
Thus, the most rational choice to ensure fair legal certainty concerning the definition, scope, and
boundaries of international arbitral awards as stipulated in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 is to remove the
word “deemed” from the provision. With said removal, the remaining phrase — “or which, under the
laws of the Republic of Indonesia, is considered an international arbitral award” — serves to reinforce
the territorial concept expressed in the phrase “an award rendered by an arbitral institution or
individual arbitrator outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia.”
03
The formulation of Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999
encompasses two elements.
• First, it emphasizes the territorial aspect,
whereby an international or foreign arbitral
award refers to any arbitral decision rendered
outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia.
• Second, it focuses on the legislative or
positive law aspect, whereby an arbitral
award is deemed to fall within the category of
an international arbitral award based on
Indonesian law.
Thus, Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 creates legal
uncertainty as it opens a broad space for
interpretation without clear indicators. This
has the potential to result in multiple
interpretations and uncertainty in the
enforcement of international arbitral awards in
Indonesia.
At the normative level, Law 30/1999 has drawn a
clear distinction between domestic arbitral awards
and international arbitral awards, covering
aspects such as the time frame for registration,
the place of registration, the requirements for
enforcement, and the grounds for annulment.
Notably, in the case of international arbitral
awards, annulment may only be sought before the
court where the award was rendered. In this
regard, SC Reg. 1/1990 once defined the concept
of foreign (international) arbitration with a
formulation similar to that later codified in
Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999. However, over time, the
Supreme Court has acknowledged a regulatory
gap concerning the phrase “deemed as an
international arbitral award” within the said
provision. The use of the term “deemed,”
according to the Supreme Court, is uncommon
in the context of definitions under the general
provisions of a statute.
1 2
3
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT URGES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS TO CLARIFY
THE INTERPRETATION OF NON-DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS
Point 3.15 – 3.17 pp. 130 – 142 CC Decision 100/2024
Point 3.17 p. 139 – 142 CC Decision 100/2024
Point V p. 143 CC Decision 100/2024

THE IMPACTS
OF CC DECISION 100/2024
The CC Decision 100/2024 has significant implications for the implementation and enforcement of international arbitral awards in Indonesia.
The key impacts are as follows:
LEGAL CERTAINTY IN DEFINING INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS
SHIFT TOWARD A TERRITORIAL APPROACH
01 By removing the word “deemed” from Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999, the Constitutional Court affirms that only arbitral awards rendered
outside Indonesian jurisdiction, or those explicitly recognized under Indonesian law, qualify as international arbitral awards. This
revision eliminates broad and ambiguous interpretations, thereby enhancing legal clarity for parties relying on such awards. It
aligns with Gustav Radbruch’s view that legal provisions must be clearly formulated to prevent misinterpretation and ensure
proper implementation. It also reflects Hans Kelsen’s theory of legal certainty, which emphasizes that the law must offer
predictability and clarity for society
02 The removal of the word “deemed” reinforces the territorial concept. Accordingly, the definition and scope of international arbitral
awards in Indonesia are now based on territorial principles and other factors as regulated under the prevailing laws and regulations.
CALL FOR FURTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION
03 The Constitutional Court’s decision implicitly urges lawmakers to enact more specific legal parameters to determine which awards
qualify as international under Indonesian law. This includes harmonizing domestic regulations with international arbitration
conventions, such as the NY Convention.
IMPROVED INVESTOR CONFIDENCE AND ENFORCEMENT PRACTICE
04 Foreign investors often rely on arbitration as a neutral forum. Unclear domestic definitions raised concerns about enforceability.
With the Constitutional Court’s clarification, investors now have more confidence that international arbitral awards will be treated
consistently, in this context, to improve Indonesia’s attractiveness as an investment destination.
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES FOR COURTS AND PRACTITIONERS
05 Judges, arbitrators, and legal practitioners must now rely on a clearer standard when addressing applications for recognition and
enforcement. It also imposes stricter threshold for classifying awards as international, which could affect forum selection, choice of
law, and procedural strategy in arbitration agreements.
Point 36 p. 15 jo. p. 108 CC Decision 100/2024
Point 3.17 p. 140 CC Decision 100/2024
Point 3.17 pp. 139 – 142 CC Decision 100/2024
06 The CC Decision 100/2024 is the latest and firm encouragement conveyed by the Constitutional Court that laws or regulations
concerning arbitration must consider the principles of: Indonesian sovereignty; national economic interests; effective and efficient
dispute resolution; and the principle of mutual benefit in international cooperation; as well as ensuring the harmonization of national
law with international law so that Indonesia remains respected in the international legal community.
REAFFIRMATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SOVEREIGNTY AND LEGAL CERTAINTY IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
Point 47.2.6 pp. 21 – 22 CC Decision 100/2024
Point C p. 90 CC Decision 100/2024
Togi Pangaribuan. (2024, May 15). International Arbitration Award After the CC Decision 100/2024.

LEGAL ISSUES IN LAW 30/1999 (1/2)
LACK OF STIPULATION ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONAL OR INTERLOCUTORY AWARD
UNCLEAR DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC ORDER (1/2)
COMPLIANCE WITH AUTOMATIC STAY ON PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Article 32 (1) Law 30/1999, the arbitrator or tribunal may render a provisional award or other interlocutory award to set
the order of the hearings, including the establishment of security seizure (sita jaminan), order the deposit of goods to the third
party, or sell perishable goods. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 32 (2) Law 30/1999, period for the execution of provisional award or
other interlocutory award shall not be counted within the 180 days period of a dispute examination since the establishment of the
arbitrator or tribunal.
Although Law 30/1999 principally stipulates the authority of arbitrator or tribunal to render provisional award or other interlocutory award,
there are no further regulation regarding how to enforce such award in Law 30/1999. Stipulation regarding its enforcement is regulated
under SC Reg. 3/2023. According to Article 29 SC Reg. 3/2023, the enforcement of provisional award or interlocutory award for security
seizure (sita jaminan) refers to the procedure in civil procedural law. Despite the clarity and legal certainty that SC Reg. 3/2023 brings, it
remains an internal regulation only to judicial institutions, namely the Supreme Court and all the Indonesian courts thereunder. should the
Indonesian government through the House of Representative and the President would like to revise Law 30/1999, then it is highly
advisable for similar regulation to be regulated in Law 30/1999 as it is the base of Indonesian arbitration law.
Pursuant to Article 3 Law 30/1999, the District Court shall not have competence to adjudicate dispute of both parties who have
been bounded through arbitration agreement. Furthermore, Article 11 (2) Law 30/1999 stipulates the District Court has the legal
obligation to reject a case which has been agreed by the parties to be settled through arbitration mechanism. However, there is
an occurrence where the district court does not adhere to such regulation as shown in South Jakarta District Court Decision Number
1100/Pdt.G/2008/PN.JKT.Sel. Although the parties have agreed to settle any arising dispute through arbitration in Singapore International
Arbitration Centre, one party violated such agreement by pursuing dispute settlement through South Jakarta District Court. The other party,
abiding with the agreement, then pursued dispute settlement through SIAC. Although SIAC’s decision – ordering the termination of ongoing
court proceedings at South Jakarta District Court - was in line with Article 3 and Article 11 (2) Law 30/1999, Central Jakarta District Court
decided that such decision was a violation of principle of sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia and deemed SIAC’s decision to be
unenforceable.
According to Article 62 and Article 66 Law 30/1999, the enforcement of both national and international arbitral award depends on the
examination result on whether said arbitral award is in conflict with public order. While Article 4 (2) SC Reg. 1/1990 defines public
order as the fundamental principles of the Indonesian legal system and society, such definition is considered vague. As there is no clear
definition of what constitutes public order, the standard for refusing the enforcement of an arbitral award on the grounds of public order is
contrary to the principle of legal certainty.
In practice, there are various interpretations of public order pursuant to the existing court decisions, such as:
a. Indonesian positive laws, in Supreme Court Decision Number 1205K/Pdt/1990 [Yani Haryanto v E.D.F. & Man Sugar Ltd] and
Supreme Court Decision Number 01/BANDING/WASIT.INT/2002 and Number 444 PK/Pdt/2007 [Karaha Bodas Company LLC v. PT
Pertamina];
b. final and legally binding court decisions, in Central Jakarta District Court Number 97 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2016 [PT Cipta Televisi
Pendidikan Indonesia (PT CTPI), et al., v. Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, et al.] and Central Jakarta District Court Number 266 B/Pdt.Sus-
Arbt/2016 [Head of the Department of Transportation of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta v. PT Ifani Dewi and BANI]; and
c. the respondent’s opportunity to provide counterargument, in Supreme Court Decision Number 4231 K/Pdt/1986 [Trading
Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. PT Bakrie & Brothers].
M. Tanziel Aziezi, et al., Kertas Kebijakan Penguatan Sistem Eksekusi Sengketa Perdata di Indonesia, (Jakarta:
Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi Independensi Peradilan/ Indonesian Institute for Independent Judiciary, 2019), p. 196.
M. Tanziel Aziezi, et al., Kertas Kebijakan Penguatan Sistem Eksekusi Sengketa Perdata di Indonesia, (Jakarta: Lembaga
Kajian dan Advokasi Independensi Peradilan/ Indonesian Institute for Independent Judiciary, 2019), p. 193-195
Nearly 26 years since the enactment of Law No. 30 of 1999, which remains untouched by legislative
amendment, a number of unresolved legal issues continue to arise, including the following:

LEGAL ISSUES IN LAW 30/1999 (2/2)
ANTI SUIT INJUNCTION
There is no regulation under Law 30/1999 regarding an anti suit injunction – a court order issued by one jurisdiction restraining a
party from initiating or continuing proceedings in another jurisdiction or forum (including foreign courts) – unlike in other countries, such as
United Kingdom and United States.
In the case of UAU v. HVB [2021], English court issued anti-suit injunction so that all proceedings pursued by HVB in the Equatorial Guinea
proceedings which was clearly a breach of the arbitration clause under the farm-out agreement would be terminated.
In the case of Memorial Moses H. Cone v. Mercury Construction Corp. [1983], the Supreme Court of United States emphasized the
importance of its authority to issue an anti suit injunction for the purpose of protecting arbitration process.
In the case of Astro Nusantara International B.V. v. PT Ayunda Prima Mitra [2010], the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia
rejected the existence and enforcement of an anti suit injunction issued by the Tribunal at Singapore court due to its belief that such
implementation would mean violating the principle of sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia.
UNCLEAR TIME LIMITATION FOR THE REGISTRATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARD
According to Article 59 Law 30/1999, a national arbitral award must be registered by the arbitrator or his/her proxy to the District Court.
However, there is no similar regulation when it comes to the international arbitral award which is stipulated under Article 65 to
Article 69 Law 30/1999. The issue is also not addressed in SC Reg. 3/2023. As the enforcement of international arbitral award which is
not voluntarily executed by the parties heavily depends on its registration to the Central Jakarta District Court, the lack of clarity on time
limitation for its registration may be exploited by the losing party who is unwilling to enforce the international arbitral award by
postponing the registration of such award or even not registering it at all. In light of this situation, should the Indonesian government
through the House of Representative and the President would like to revise Law 30/1999, then it is advisable to set a clear time limitation
for the registration of an international arbitration award.
Supreme Court Decision Number 01K/Pdt.Sus/2010
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/460/1
Source: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/1548.html
UNCLEAR DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC ORDER (2/2)
Pursuant to Article 1 (9) SC Reg. 3/2023, public order refers to all fundamental principles necessary for the functioning of the legal system,
economic system, and socio-cultural system of Indonesian society and the nation. While the definition of public order regulated under
Article 1 (9) SC Reg. 3/2023 could be considered as ‘catch-all provision’, Its existence serves as evidence of an awareness of the
importance of legal certainty. In light of this situation, should the Indonesian government through the House of Representative and the
President would like to revise Law 30/1999, then the inclusion of clearer criteria for public order is strongly recommended.

CONCLUSIONS
Historical Development
For nearly 26 years of its enactment, Law 30/1999 as Indonesian arbitration law has only undergone 2 times
constitutional review by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. First, through CC Decision 14/2014 with
respect to the Elucidation of Article 70 Law 30/1999. Lastly, CC Decision 100/2024 with respect to Article 1 (9) Law
30/1999.
Constitutional Issue in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999
The main issue in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 is there exist a combination of narrow and broad territorial concepts
which creates legal uncertainty as displayed in several court decisions in Indonesia, specifically the word “deemed”.
In comparison, arbitration laws in other countries like United Kingdom specifically implement narrow territorial
concept, while other arbitration laws like United States and Singapore create a specific criteria to which arbitral award
could be categorized as international arbitral award.
CC Decision 100/2024
After examining the constitutional review request submitted by the petitioner, the Constitutional Court principally
agreed that there are combination of narrow and broad territorial concept in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 which opens a
broad space for interpretation without clear indicators, resulting in multiple interpretations and uncertainty in the
enforcement of international arbitral awards in Indonesia. Consequently, the Constitutional Court then rendered
CC Decision 100/2024 which eliminates the word “deemed” in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 as it is inconsistent with the
1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and therefore has no binding legal force. Furthermore, Constitutional
Court urges the establishment of implementing regulations to clarify the interpretation of non-domestic international
arbitral awards.
Impacts of CC Decision 100/2024
As there is change in Article 1 (9) Law 30/1999 through CC Decision 100/2024, there are several impacts as follows:
(1) legal certainty in defining international arbitral awards, (2) shift toward a territorial approach, (3) call for further
legislative action, (4) improved investor confidence and enforcement practice, and (5) practical consequences for
courts and practitioners, and (6) reaffirmation of the principles of sovereignty and legal certainty in international
arbitration.
Legal Issues in Law 30/1999
Taking into consideration that that Law 30/1999 has yet been amended after nearly 26 years of its enactment, there
are several legal issues in Law 30/1999, among others, (1) compliance with automatic stay on proceedings, (2) lack of
stipulation on the enforcement of provisional or interlocutory award, (3) unclear definition and enforcement of public
order, (4) anti-suit injunction, and (5) unclear time limitation for the registration of an international arbitration award.

We will continue to follow the developments on this topic and provide additional information as it
becomes available. If you have any questions on this topic, please contact:
Stacia Faustine
stacia@ahrplaw.com
Indira Wahyu Prameswari
prameswari@ahrplaw.com
This publication has been prepared by AHRP for educational and informational purposes only. The information contained in this publication is not
intended and should not be construed as legal advice. Due to the rapidly changing nature of law, AHRP makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the accuracy or completeness of this content. You should consult with an attorney to review the current status of the law and how it
applies to your circumstances before deciding to take any action.
World Capital Tower 19th floor
Jl Mega Kuningan Barat No.3
Jakarta 12950 Indonesia
P: +6221 50917915
+6221 50917916
E: office@ahrplaw.com
www.ahrplaw.com
Eric Cihanes
eric@ahrplaw.com

AHRP LB - Revisiting Arbitration Law A Critical Reflection on Constitutional Court Decision Number 100PUUXXII2024 and the Future of Law Number 30 of 1999.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to AHRP LB - Revisiting Arbitration Law A Critical Reflection on Constitutional Court Decision Number 100PUUXXII2024 and the Future of Law Number 30 of 1999.pdf (8)

More from AHRP Law Firm (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

AHRP LB - Revisiting Arbitration Law A Critical Reflection on Constitutional Court Decision Number 100PUUXXII2024 and the Future of Law Number 30 of 1999.pdf