Reconstructing the Evidentiary Framework for the Annulment of Arbitral Awards to Ensure Legal Certainty

Authors

  • Mohamad Toha Hasan Universitas Islam Syekh Yusuf
  • Chairul Lutfi Universitas Islam Depok
  • Bintan Dzumirroh Ariny Universitas Islam Depok

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21154/invest.v6i1.14698

Keywords:

annulment of arbitral award, arbitration, evidence, judicial reasoning, legal certainty

Abstract

Article 70 of Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution permits the annulment of an arbitral award on three specified grounds. Following Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XII/2014, the elucidation requiring those grounds to be proven by a prior court judgment ceased to have binding force. Nevertheless, judicial decisions continue to diverge regarding the requirement of a prior criminal judgment. This normative legal study applies statutory, case, and conceptual approaches to South Jakarta District Court Decision Number 427/Pdt. Sus-Arbt/2021/PN JKT.SEL and Number 582/Pdt. Sus-Arbt/2021/PN Jkt.Sel in conjunction with Supreme Court Decision Number 244 B/Pdt. Sus-Arbt/2022, as well as the Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 699/Pdt. G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst in conjunction with Supreme Court Decision No. 327 B/Pdt. Sus-Arbt/2021. The study finds a divergence between the criminal-judgment prerequisite and direct proof in annulment proceedings. It proposes a five-part evidentiary model: a specific allegation supported by initial evidence; allocation of the burden of proof to the applicant; differentiated proof for each ground in Article 70; prohibition on re-examining the merits of the arbitral dispute; and express judicial reasoning linking the proven procedural defect to the award. Statutory clarification and harmonization of Supreme Court guidance are necessary to improve legal certainty while preserving arbitration’s finality.

References

Andriansyah, Muhammad. 2014. “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Nasional oleh Pengadilan Negeri.” Jurnal Cita Hukum 2(2): 331–340. https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v1i2.1472.

Ariprabowo, Tri, and R. Nazriyah. 2017. “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase oleh Pengadilan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014.” Jurnal Konstitusi 14(4): 701–727. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1441.

Barak, Aharon. 2005. Purposive Interpretation in Law. Translated by Sari Bashi. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Benfa, Ahmad Frisky Paradipta, Marjo, and Kartika Widya Utama. 2025. “Pelaksanaan Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia Pasca-Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014.” Diponegoro Law Journal 14(2). https://doi.org/10.14710/dlj.2025.49488.

Fuller, Lon L. 1969. The Morality of Law. Revised edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hadjon, Philipus M., and Tatiek Sri Djatmiati. 2014. Argumentasi Hukum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Kelsen, Hans. 1967. Pure Theory of Law. Translated by Max Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kurniawan, Michael Jordi, and Harjono. 2016. “Implikasi Yuridis Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase di Indonesia.” Jurnal Verstek 4(3): 119–127. https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v4i3.38770.

MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers, eds. 1991. Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

Mappiasse, Syarif. 2017. Logika Hukum Pertimbangan Putusan Hakim. Jakarta: Kencana.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2007. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana.

Mertokusumo, Sudikno, and A. Pitlo. 1993. Bab-bab tentang Penemuan Hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Pratidina, Ilhami Ginang. 2014. “Interpretasi Mahkamah Agung terhadap Alasan Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase dalam Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999.” Yuridika 29(3). https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v29i3.374.

Rossdiono, Anangga W., and Muhamad Dzadit Taqwa. 2024. “Dampak dari Putusan No. 15/PUU-XII/2014 terhadap Eksistensi Arbitrase di Indonesia: Menguji Kembali Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase.” BANI Arbitration and Law Journal 1(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.63400/balj.v1i1.1.

Sugiyono, Heru, Heru Suyanto, and Rosalia Dika Agustanti. 2020. “The Law of Arbitration Rules that are Final and Binding.” Indonesia Law Review 10(3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v10n3.655.

Winata, Frans Hendra. 2013. Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, most recently amended by Law Number 7 of 2020.

Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power.

Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (HIR), Staatsblad 1941 Number 44, Article 163.

Indonesian Civil Code, Art. 1865.

UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, with amendments as adopted in 2006, Article 34.

Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 7 of 2012 on the Legal Formulations of the Supreme Court Chamber Plenary Meeting as Guidelines for the Courts

Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XII/2014, pronounced on November 11, 2014.

South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 427/Pdt. Sus-Arbt/2021/PN JKT.SEL, decided on July 7, 2021.

South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 582/Pdt. Sus-Arbt/2021/PN Jkt.Sel in conjunction with Supreme Court Decision Number 244 B/Pdt. Sus-Arbt/2022, delivered on February 24, 2022.

Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 699/Pdt. G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst, decided May 19, 2020, in conjunction with Supreme Court Decision

Downloads

Published

2026-07-30

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026)

Section

Articles

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Mohamad Toha Hasan, Chairul Lutfi, Bintan Dzumirroh Ariny

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

An author who publishes in the Invest Journal of Sharia & Economic Law agrees to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).