Jumat, 01 Januari 2016

ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS

By Dr. W. Suwito



A.               Introduction
One of the non litigation alternatives for business dispute resolution is arbitration. The business communities choose arbitration for resolving their dispute because of its eminency from  the court settlement (litigation process), namely simple procedure, fast, less costly and confidential. The legal basis for arbitration is the “arbitration clause” in the main agreement among the parties that states “in terms of the dispute arises, the parties agree to settle it by means of arbitration”. Through the arbitration process, an arbitrator or arbitral tribunal performs a proceeding upon the substances of dispute.
The award is final and binding and enforceable; however, a party who dissatisfies with the award may seek a court to set aside the award.  Under the Law Nr. 30 of 1999 regarding Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, a court may “upon the application of any party to the arbitration” order to vacate an arbitration award.  The court must find that a specified ground for vacating the award exists.  In reviewing an arbitration award, the District Court is precluded from considering the factual or legal issues that were, by voluntary agreement, made the subject of the arbitration.  An arbitrator's decision will be upheld, unless it is completely irrational or constitutes a manifest disregard of the law.
The Arbitration Law No. 30 of 1999 has firmly regulated the jurisdiction of arbitration, yet efforts to annul the award in the District Court continued to increase, in particular the international award, which is under Article 1.9 of Law Nr. 30/199 is defined as arbitration award rendered by an arbitration institute or arbitrator outside the jurisdiction of Republic of Indonesia, or individual arbitrator or arbitration institute which pursuant to the law of Republic of Indonesia is considered international arbitration award.  Many issues have been raised regarding the enforcement of the award, including the obedience of the court to recognize the jurisdiction of arbitration that adjudicate case containing arbitration clause, resulting in the law uncertainty, including arbitration award rendered abroad.[1]
As Rahayu Ningsih Hoed said:
There is no warranty or legal certainty that the international award could be executed in Indonesia. The claimant can do some efforts againts it to promote its cancellation via the Indonesian District Court. The precedent in Indonesia is “all of the resistence againts it always be accomodated by the Indonesian District Court”.
Given such a background, the following report discusses the enforcement of arbitration award by the Indonesia’s Court.  It discusses the ambiguity of the Article 70 of Arbitration Law regarding the annulment of the award, which has often led to multi interpretation and inconsistency.   The discussions also include in what conditions the foreign rendered arbitration award is not executable in Indonesia and what is meant by the “public policy”, a factor that has been used as one of reasons to decline the execution of arbitral award,
For the case study, there are two cases involving annulment of internatonal arbitration award by the Central Jakarta District Court.  Based on the legal reason “ militating with the public order”, and under the verdict No. 86/PN/Jkt.Pst/2001, the District Court annulled  the Swiss arbitration award in the case of PT. Pertamina vs. Karaha Bodas Company (KBC). This case was selected as a matter of study because there are many mistakes in the implementation and enforcement of both the substantive law and procedural law.

B.                 What is Arbitration Award
An arbitration award (or arbitral award) is a determination on the merits by an arbitration tribunal in an arbitration, and is analogous to a judgment in a court of law.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines the award as follows:[2]
The decision or determination rendered by arbitrators or  commissioners, or other private or extra-judicial deciders, upon a controversy submitted to them; also the writing or  document embodying such decision”.
Whereas the Article 52 of LawNo. 30 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, defines the award as:
“a final and binding decision/judgement made by an arbitrator on certain legal relationship of the agreement between the parties who are in a dispute”
For the purpose of enforcement, the award shall be registered at the clerk of the District Court.  In addition to final award (putusan akhir), Indonesian Arbitration Law also recognizes provisional award (putusan sela), conciliation award (putusan perdamaian) and default judgment (putusan verstek).
a.                  Provisional Award
Article 32 of Law Nr. 30/1999 stipulates that “upon request of a party, tribunal may issue a provisional award to regulate the proceeding for resolving the dispute including bail confiscation (sita jaminan), deposit of goods to the third party, or selling the easily damaged goods.  The provisional award may also be rendered in order to allow multiple issues to be heard in one hearing or trial and is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or fair.
The term is also used in the realm of contracts to describe the joining of new parties to an existing agreement, if there is any reasonable interest and agreed by the parties and the tribunal.  No matter what the reason is, the third party’s joining in the dispute settlement will lead the process become more complicated than ever, and it is so difficult to get a deal between the parties, that the content of Article 30 Indonesian Arbitration Act No. 30 1999 On Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution leads any ambiguity on its implementation and enforcement.  The interim award is frequently used for where:
(1)   Disputes can conveniently be divided into stages;    
(2)   Determination of preliminary issues may save the time and cost of a prolonged reference;    
(3)   The costs of arbitrator’s award deals with separately from the substantive issues.    
The interim award does not determine all the matters in dispute  between the parties but all the matters referred to an interim award are determined finally therein. The word “interim” does not imply that those  matters decided in the interim award are subject to review, but really “final and binding” for those matters that has been decided for.
b.                  Final Award (Putusan Akhir)
Whenever the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal accomplishes all of their works, unless otherwise stated, an award is deemed to be final and binding on the parties, and  it concludes the reference. As soon as the arbitrator has completed and published his award then his work as an arbitrator and his power and duty cease. He becomes functus officio, meaning that he has discharged his duty.
It follows that thereafter he has no jurisdiction to deal with any question or difficulty that may arise from his award. There are some exceptions to this matter, as it was assigned within article 70 Indonesian Arbitration Awards No. 30 1999 On Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution  about “awards cancelation”.    
c.                   Concilialition Award (Putusan Perdamaian)
The parties who are engaged in the dispute settlement may reach any condition of reconciliation between them before the final awards could be appointed, because of their own demands or by the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal initiatives, in order to terminate the dispute by a reconciliation based deal which is stated in an arbitrator or arbitral tribunal awards that so called as “ Conciliation Awards (Putusan Perdamaian)”. This awards also has its characteristics of an “arbitration awards”, those are : final and binding for the parties, and has the same ‘execution effect’ as the final awards.
d.                  Default Judgment (Putusan Vesrstek)
A judgment entered against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend against the claimant’s claim (more than ten (10) days after the second summons has been received by, and there is no any legal problem or objection on the matter of claim). This awards also has the quality of “final and binding” the parties, and has the ‘execution effect’ as well.

C.                Enforcement of Arbitration Award
The function of an arbitration award is to resolve a dispute.  This does not mean that the dispute has been resolved completely before the award is executed by the disputed parties, since the arbitrator has no power or authority to enforce the award.  The procedure for obtaining an enforceable judgment is to petition a court to confirm the award.  A court must confirm an arbitration award unless there are significant reasons to the contrary.  The authority of the court is limited on fulfillment of the formal and procedural administrative requirements for the award.
For the purpose of enforcement, the Law No. 30 1999 classifies the award into domestic and international arbitration, namely the Article 59 to 64 for domestic award and Article 65 to 69 for international award.  As defined in the Article 1.9 of the Law No.3-/1999, “International Arbitration Awards shall mean awards rendered by an arbitration institution or individual arbitrator(s) outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia, or an award by an arbitration institution or individual arbitrator(s) which under the provisions of Indonesian law are deemed to be international arbitration awards.
In issuing a writ of execution, the Chief Judge of the District Court shall first review whether the arbitration award meets some criteria such as the agreement to resolve the dispute by arbitration is written in a document signed by the parties, the dispute is in the field of trade and with regard to the right in accordance with the laws and regulations, and the dispute does not violate the decency and public order.  If according to the District Court, there is one or more of the said conditions are not met, then the court shall reject the request for execution and there shall no recourse whatsoever to the judgment of the District Court.
For the international arbitration, the procedure of execution is provided under the provision in the Article 65 trough 69 of Arbitration Law as a renewal of the same provision in Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 1990 (PERMA) on the Procedure of Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Award.  The application for execution of international arbitration award is submitted to the Central Jakarta District Court along with the document to be filed.  Based on the application, the Central Jakarta District Court issues the decision which grants or refuses to recognize or to execute the international arbitration award. 
If the Chief Judge of Central Jakarta District Court accepts, recognizes and enforces the international arbitration award then its award is final therefore is not subject to cassation or appeal. In contrary, if the Chief Judge of Central Jakarta District Court refuses to recognize and enforce an international arbitration award, an appeal or cassation may be filed with the Supreme Court. Within the maximum 90 (ninety) days upon receiving such request for cassation, the Supreme Court shall consider and rule to accept or to refuse the request for such cassation.. The decision of Supreme Court is also final, and no appeal may be submitted against it.
In order to be recognized and enforced, the execution shall meet certain criteria. Article 66 of Arbitration Law, which states certain requirements that must be met before an international arbitration award can be recognized and enforced in the territory of Republic of Indonesia, namely:
1)      The award is rendered by arbitrator or arbitration tribunal in a country that Indonesia is bound by a treaty, bilaterally or multilaterally, on recognition and enforcement of international arbitration award (reciprocity principle, Article 66).  Indonesia is a signature of the two International Conventions, which are the basic instrument of law to execute the international award in Indonesia, namely:
a)      Convention on the Settlement of Investment Dispute Between State and National of Order State (ICSID) rules that was ratified by Law No. 5/1968.
b)      NewYork Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbital Award of 1958, which was ratified by Presidential Decree No. 34/1981
2)      The award is limited to award that under the provisions of Indonesian law falls within the scope of commercial law (Article 66).
3)      The said award may only be enforced in Indonesia if it does not violate the public order (Article 66).
4)      International arbitration award may be enforced in Indonesia only upon receiving an order of exequatur from the Chief Judge of the Central Jakarta District Court.
5)      No appeal or cassation may be submitted against the Supreme Court’s award that recognizes or refuses an international arbitration award.

D.                Annulment of the Award
Section VII of the Law No. 30/1999 (Article 70 - 72) stipulates the requirements to vacate the award, under which the Article 70 states that a party may submit a request for annulment of an arbitration award for reasons of false or counterfeit and concealed documents (known after the awards has been rendered) or the rendered award is based on deceit of one of the party.  Furthermore, the Article 72 (4) and (5) of the Law No. 33/1999 stipulates that the losing party may file cassation to the Supreme Court, who will render its decision within 30 (thirty) days following the filing of appeal.  However, the Article 70 does not stipulate the necessary law based reasons for the judge in the District Court to deciding the petition to annul the award.
Note that the Law No. 30/1999 specifically addresses the procedure for annulment of the domestic award and it is silent with respect to the annulment of international award.  This is due to that the District Court is not a competent authority to annul the international arbitration award by any reasons thereof.  This will be further elaborated in the following case study.

E.                 Case Study
The annulment of international arbitration award, may be reviewed from two view points, as follows.
1)   Indonesia is not a “country of origin” where the the award has been made; accordingly the District Court has no authority to do so.  Under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbital Award and also 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, the competent authority to set aside International Arbitration award is in the country of origin. As Indonesia has ratified the New York Convention, it became imperative that Indonesia adopted the “country of origin" principle for international award within the Law No. 30 1999.  While it is a logical approach, however, it has created a legal loophole that used to deal with a situation where there is no rule of law.
2)   There has been a view among the public, practitioners and law enforcement officials that "something is not regulated, nor prohibited and if it is not banned then it means should be done". While the view is not wrong, but it should be noted that in relation to international arbitration, something that is not regulated in the Law No. 30 1999, should be referred back to the provisions of the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model 1958 law as an instrument of substantive law and procedural law of international arbitration.
Moreover, recognition and enforcement of the provisions of the New York Convention 1958 within Law No. 30 1999 is further highlight by the use of "public order" principle to resist the execution of foreign awards in Indonesia as well as to annul the award.  This can seen in two cases, namely the case of Pertamina against Karaha Bodas Company (KBC) and Bankers Trust (BT) against Mayora.  In both cases, the principle of "public order" has been used as the ultimate consideration to resist the execution and simultaneously annul the foreign rendered award.
In the case of Pertamina versus KBC, in awarding for the annulment of the award, the Central Jakarta District Court has considered the following:
1)      Appointment of arbitrators is not in accordance with what has been agreed and not the arbitrator who has been appointed by the parties under the agreement
2)      Pertamina has not not given the proper notice for the arbitration
3)      Pertamina has not not given an opportunity to defend itself
4)      In rendering the award, the arbitral tribunal has not based on the governing law as stipulated in the contract, namely Indonesian Law thereby the tribunal has exceeded its authority.
5)      In rendering the award, the arbitral tribunal has based solely on the principle of "aquo et bono".
A review of the Court’s award shows some inconsistency and misapplication of the law by the Central Jakarta District Court as follows:
1)      The panel of judges of the Central Jakarta District Court have exceeds their authority to annul the award that was rendered in Switzerland.
2)      The panel of judges has made error in interpreting the implementation of "public order" principle under the Article 68 of Law Nr. 30/1999.
In reviewing the case, we shall start with the fact that there are essentially three types of law that govern the process of arbitration, namely:[3]
1)      Substantive Law or governing law, which is used to render the award;
2)      Procedural Law, which is the law that governs the arbitrators and the parties in the process, from the beginning until the rendering of award;
3)      Choiced Law/Lex arbitri, which is the law of the country where the arbitration takes place.  In Indonesia, the Lex arbitri is Law No. 30/1999.
In the case Karaha Bodas vs Pertamina, the substantive and procedural law is Indonesia Law, namely Law Nr. 30 of 1999, while the lex arbitri is Switzerland.  Accordingly, the competent authority to annul the award is Switzerland Court, while the authority of Central Jakarta District Court is only to accept or reject the execution of foreign rendered arbitral awards in Indonesia.  In short, the Central Jakarta District Court has exceeded its authority and violated the provisions of the New York Convention 1958 and the UNCITRAL model law in 1958.
In summary, in trying to annul the award, Pertamina should apply to the competent authority in the country of origin where the award was made, i.e. Switzerland, and not the Central Jakarta District Court that under the New York Convention 1958 has absolutely no authority to cancel a foreign rendered award.  Also, the the Central Jakarta District Court has misinterpreted the "public order" principle as the basis for foreign awards cancellation, whereas the "public order" principle within  the Article 66 (c) of Law No. 30 1999 is intended to determine whether a foreign award can be regognized and enforced in Indonesia.  It is noted that there is absolutely no any indication in the Law No. 30 1999 which states that "public order" principle can be used as a reason for the court to cancel the foreign award.
Also, the Central Jakarta District Court has been wrong in the implementation of “public order” under the Article 66 of Law Nr. 30/1999 and the Article V paragraph (1)(e) of the 1958 New York Convention which says that recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition that the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

F.                 Ambiguity of Law No. 30/1999
 Basically, starting from selection of arbitrator(s) until the award rendered arbitration process is carried out based on an arbitration agreement.  Each party of the agreement shall act in a good faith to resolve their dispute, while the arbitration process to resolve the dispute follows the procedure established by law, including the enforcement of arbitration through the District Court.  However, in practice, the execution of the awards may face many obstacles such as efforts to delay and/or to annul the award.  This would make the arbitration process to resolve the dispute is slow and becoming expensive, while confidentiality would not be achieved.  Under the Law 30/1999, attempts to refuse or delay the execution of the award are carried out under the Article 70 through 72 as follows:
1)      Article 70
Article 70 stipulates the requirements for annulment of an award as follows:
a)      The document used in the arbitral proceedings turns out false or counterfeit;
b)      A notable document has been concealed by one of the parties; or
c)      The awards has been taken based on a deceit of one of the party
Furthermore, in the elucidation of Article 70 states that:
"....... the reasons for the cancellation request is referred to in this article shall be evidenced by a court decision. If the court stated that the reasons are proven or not proven, then it can be used by the court as a basis for the judge to grant or deny the petition ".
Such elucidation, on one hand requires applicants to submit evidence, namely the court verdict to support the reasons for annulment of the award, while on the other hand, within the elucidation of the Article 70, with attention to the word "dapat” or “may in the sentence "..... This court decision 'can' be used as a basis for the judge to grant or deny the petition ". Thus, as if it implied that the judge is given the authority to examine the reasons for the request are not evidenced by a court decision.
This will cause difficulty for the judge in trying to avoid re-examining the substance of the case which has been considered in the arbitration award, and is difficult to avoid the urge to intervene in arbitration matters. Though Law No. 30 1999 does not give authority to the judge to re-examine the merits of the case that has been decided by the arbitral tribunal, as stated in the explanation of Article 72 section (2) of Law Nr. 30/1999 as follows:
Chairman of the District Court may decide that after cancellation spoken, the same arbitrator or another arbitrator will re-examine the relevant dispute or determine that a dispute may no longer be resolved through arbitration."
The elucidation of Article 72 section (2) of Law No. 30/1999 may be interpreted to mean that after an arbitration award is annulled by the District Court, the merits of the case should be re-examined by the arbitral tribunal. In the case PT. Krakatau Steel vs. International Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) (Table 1: Case No 4), the judge has granted the request for annulment in all matters, although reasons for revocation request are not proven through the court verdict as provided for in the elucidation of Article 70.
The improperly legal reasoning by the judge in the District Court in deciding the awards annulment includes among others:
a)      The elucidation is not binding, so the inclusion of the court verdict to support reasons for request for award annulment is not a necessity to be followed, but it is an optional in a sense that it can be used and/or can be ignored. This opinion is clearly in contrary to the universal principle of law, namely: the body of law and its elucidation is a unity that cannot be separated, so the substances of legislative elucidation should also be considered as a legal norm.
b)      Towards the reason for false documents, the judge concluded by saying, ".... those letters or documents " can be declared false ". The use of the term" can be declared false means that it has not yet confirmed/proven that the document is fake. Judge has not considered whether in fact the documents were false or not as it was proven from the absence of evidence that proclaimed its falsity.
Article 70 point (a) of Law No. 30 of 1999 uses the term "be declared false" which indicates that there is absolutely a need for a court verdict that states the documents and not merely the falsehood that a petition may be granted.  When it is compared with case No. 5,  the results of two judges assembly on case No. 4 and 5 are contradictory.  The judges in case No. 4, PT Jaya Nur Sukses vs. P.T. Hutama Karya et al,, have rejected the claimant's request for annulment of the award based on reasons of revocation has not be proven by a court verdict.  In this case, it has been proven that the understanding and implementation of the Article 70 – 72 of Law No. 30/1999 has been different from one judge to another, even among judges in the same assembly (dissenting opinion).
2)      Article 72
Elucidation for Article 72th article section (2) of Indonesian Act No. 30 1999 On Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution states:
"Chairman of the District Court is authorized to check the cancellation charges if requested by the parties, and set the result of the total or partial cancellation of the award concerned. Chairman of the District Court may decide that after cancellation spoken, the same arbitrator or another arbitrator will re-examine the relevant dispute or determine that a dispute may no longer be resolved through arbitration. "
In examining Arbitration Request for Cancellation,  Judges is limited by the provisions of Article 62 section (4) Indonesian Act No. 30 1999 on Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution that  states "Chairman of District Court did not examine the reasons or considerations of the award" so as not authorized to re-examine the merits of the case has been considered and decided by arbitrator or arbitral tribunal. But, look at Article 72 section (2) Indonesian Act No. 30 1999 On Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution, it seems there will be difficult for judges to avoid a re-examination of the principal case.
Problems will arise if the award is canceled in part and granted in another part. Judges may not be able to cancel some arbitration decisions, and at the same time granting others without first checking its case subject. Furthermore, the elucidation of Article 72 section(2) Indonesian Act No. 30 1999 On Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution states:
“...... Chairman of the District Court may decide that after cancellation spoken, the same arbitrator or another arbitrator will re-examine the relevant dispute or determine that a dispute may no longer be resolved through arbitration”.
Section (2) of Article 72 in Law Nr. 30/1999 does not address whether the determination of a substitute arbitrator following the award annulment shall be the same arbitral tribunal or appointment of another arbitrator or arbitral tribunal.  Such an issue appears to be related to the case of BANI’s Award cancellation by the verdict of Kudus District Court No. 30/Pdt.P/2002/ PN.KDS, where by law new appointment of arbitrator is a result of annulment.  In this case, the appointed arbitrator was not BANI, but Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal in Kudus. The verdict of Chief of the District Court had ignored and in contrary to the agreement of the parties who agree to resolve the dispute through BANI.
In addition, note that associated with the court verdict that ordered the arbitral tribunal to re-examine the case following the annulment of the award has raised question, i.e. to whether the award associated with reexamination could be reexamined or whether a repeated petition for annulment coud be proposed to? It is not set in the Indonesian Act No. 30 1999 On Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution, so as giving rise to a legal loophole that could be exploited by parties who are not acting in good faith, which in turn leads to legal uncertainty.
In the elucidation of the Section 2 in Article 72 of Law No. 30/1999, there is also a clause which sayas:
"..... The same arbitrator or another arbitrator will recheck the relevant dispute or determine that a dispute may no longer be resolved through arbitration "
The sentence implies that in the beginning, a dispute was an arbitration matter and has been completely accomplished by the arbitral tribunal, but after being examined for its execution, it is stated that the dispute resolution no longer be resolved through arbitration and should be performed by another institution. Does that another institution mean the District Court which is avoided by the parties formerly? If it does so, chairman of the District Court ought to release a verdict that cancel the relevant arbitration agreement firstly. It will be difficult to do, because the competent authority to assess and decide whether an arbitration agreement can be canceled or not is the arbitral tribunal and not the District Court.

G.                Closing Remarks
Based on the above findings, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented:
1.                  Conclusions:
1)      District Court has no authority to annul the foreign award rendered ​​outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia.  Annulment of foreign arbitral award can only be made by a competent authority in the country of origin, in which the award is rendered. Under the Article 66 of Indonesia Arbitration Law, the District Court has only the authority to decide whether to accept or reject the execution of an international arbitration award in Indonesia.
2)      The losing party has often made efforts to refuse the enforcement of the award (domestic and international) by means of delaying tactics or annulment.  This is due to some part by the ambiguity of the Article 70 and 72 in Law Nr. 30/1999, which provides a legal loophole to get around the legislation. Such constraints are also due to lack of a common understanding of the District Court’s judges in interpreting and applying legislation in the field of arbitration
2.                  Recommendations:
1)      The Article 70 and 72 of Law Nr. 30/1999 shall be revised in order: (a) to provide clear limitation with respect to the requirements for a petition for arbitration award annulment. (b) to replace the word "may" in Article 70 that has led to multiple interpretations, (c) to replace the word "among others", in the elucidation of Chapter VII with the word" is ", and (d) adding a provision that ensures after an award is annulled by the Chief of the District Court, the arbitration case should be re-examined by the same arbitral tribunal, unless the parties wish to have another.
2)      Adding a provision in the Indonesian Act No. 30 1999 On Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Resolution concerning to international award cancellation so there is no confusion with the authority of the District Court to overturn the decision of the domestic arbitration.
3)      Disseminate information on the Law No. 30/1999 to law enforcement officials, legal practitioners and the public in order to achieve a common understanding with respect to the substance, interpretation, implementation and enforcement of the law in order to achieve legal certainty in resolving the dispute in Indonesia.

REFFERENCES
Garner  Bryan, Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publising Co., 1999.
Gautama, Sudargo, Arbitrase Baru 1999, Bandung, PT. Citra Adityia Bakti, 1999.
Harahap M Yahya, Arbitrase, Jakarta, Pustaka Kartini, 1991.
Muhammad, Abdulkadir, Pengantar Hukum Perusahaan Indonesia, Bandung, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, 1993.
Radjagukguk Erman, Arbitrase Dalam Putusan Pengadilan, Jakarta Cindra Pertama, 2000.
Sheinis N., Richard and Wingate A., Chad, Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards, International Law in The US
Soemartono, Gatot, Arbitrase dan Mediasi di Indonesia, Jakarta, PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2006.
Usman Rahmadi, Hukum Arbitrase Nasional, Jakarta, Garasindo, 2002.
Yudowibowo Syafrudin, Eksekusi Putusan Arbitrase Internasional di Indonesia:  Sebuah Perspektif atas UU No. 30 Tahun 1999, Yustisia: Edisi Mei – Agustus 2007
Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian sengketa
Budhy Budiman, “Mencari Model Ideal penyelesaian Sengketa, Kajian Terhadap Praktik Peradilan Perdata Dan undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999”,http://www.uikabogor.ac.id/jur05.htm;
Hikmahanto Juwana, “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional oleh Pengadilan Nasional”, dalam Arbitrase Dan Mediasi, Jakarta, 08 & 09 Oktober 2002.



Table 1
Annulment of International and Domestic Awards
No.
Verdict
The Parties
Content of Verdict
Legal Reasoning
1
No.001 dan 002/Pdt/ Arb.Int/1999/PN.JKT.PST jo.02/Pdt.P/2000/PN.JKT.PST
Bankers Trust Inter-national PLC (BT) vs. PT Mayora Indah Tbk  (Mayora)
Refused to execute the international award and over-turned it
Contrary to public order
2
 No. 86/PN/Jkt.Pst/2001
PT. Pertamina vs. Ka-raha Bodas Company (KBC)
Refused to exe-cute the interna-tional award and over-turned it
Contrary to public order
3
No. 01/Pembatalan Arbi-trase /2009/PN.JKT.PST
PT. Bungo Raya Nu-santara vs. PT. Jambi Resources
Overturned the SIAC Award No. No. 25 2009
Absolute competence, trickery, and contrary to public order
4
No. 282/Pdt.P/2002/PN. Jak.Sel
PT. Krakatau Steel vs. International Piping Product, Inc. (IPP)
Accept all matters of the petition to overturn the award
Trickery, the rea-sons for cancelation doe not need to be proven by court determination
5
Putusan Perdata No. 401/Pdt/G/2001/PN.JKT.BAR tentang pembatalan putusan arbitrase ad. Hoc No. 01/X/AD-HOC/2001
PT. Jaya Nur Sukses vs. PT. Hutama Karya, (Respondent  I), Mo-hammad Salim (Res-pondent II), dan Hari-anto Sunidja (Respon-dent  III)
Refused all matters of the petition to overturn the award
Rasons for the award annulment did not support by the court determina-tion
\


[1] Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Di Pengadilan Negeri Indonesia, Disampaikan  dalam Seminar International Commercial Arbitration di Yogyakarta, Senin, tanggal 25 April 2011, www.hukumonline.com, diakses 10 Juli 2013
[2]  Bryan Garner, 1999, Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.
[3]  Hikmahanto Juwana, “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional oleh Pengadilan Nasional”, dalam Arbitrase Dan Mediasi, Jakarta, 08 & 09 Oktober 2002, hlm. 138
 (published at Newsletter Bani on Dec. 2015)