Analisis Yuridis Penolakan Eksekusi Putusan Arbitrase Internasional (Studi Kasus: Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 808 K/Pdt.Sus/2011 Dalam Perkara Antara PT. Direct Vision Melawan Astro Group Malaysia)

Abstract

The international dispute between PT. Direct Vision and Astro Group Malaysia was settled by Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), an international arbitration located in Singapore. PT. Direct Vision requested for rejecting the execution of the verdict of the international SIAC by arguing that it violated public order. However, Jakarta District Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit, arguing that PT. Ayunda Prima Mitra, the holder of PT. Direct Vision’s stocks, filed a lawsuit on illegal action in Jakarta Selatan District Court against Astro Froup Malaysia. The problems analyzed in the research were as follows: first, how about the legal provision which regulated the rejection of the execution of the international arbitration; secondly, the reasons of the penal of judges for rejecting the request for the execution of international arbitration verdict; and thirdly, how about the legal consequence of the penal of judges’ rejection on the request of non executor for the verdict of international arbitration in the Ruling of the Supreme Court No. 808 K/Pdt.Sus/2011. The research used judicial normative method which was referred to legal norms in the Civil Code, Law No. 30/1999 on Arbitration and Alternative for Settling Disputes, New York Convention of 1985, Perma No. 1/1990 on the Implementation of the Verdict of International Arbitration in Indonesia, and the Ruling of the Supreme Court No. 808 K/Pdt.Sus/2011. It was concluded that, first, legal provision which regulated the request for rejection of the execution of international arbitration verdict, according to UUA and UPS, as well as New York Convention of 1985, was permitted to be filed to the court of the country where the executed domiciled, but the cancelation could only be filed in the country where the verdict was handed down. Secondly, the reasons of the penal of judges for rejecting the request to reject international arbitration verdict, filed by PT. Direct Vision, did not provide any legal certainty for PT. Direct Vision. Thirdly, the legal consequence of the rejection by the penal of judges on the execution of international arbitration verdict in the Ruling of the Supreme Court No. 808 K/Pdt.Sus/2011 had caused the verdict to become non-executing. It is recommended that UUA and UPS should be revised and the time for registering international arbitration verdict in Indonesia (and not only the time for registering national arbitration verdict) is arranged in order that the rejection for the verdict of international arbitration is not intermixed between the reason for rejection and the reason for cancelation. PT. Direct Vision should wait for the provision of the execution from the Head of Jakarta Selatan District Court in the case of lawsuit for illegal action filed by PT. Ayunda Prima Mitra

Sengketa arbitrase internasional antara PT. Direct Vision dan Astro Group Malaysia diselesaikan di Singapore International Arbitrase Centre (SIAC) sebuah arbitrase internasional yang berkedudukan di Singapura. PT. Direct Vision mengajukan permohonan penolakan eksekusi putusan arbitrase internasional SIAC sehubungan dengan alasan pelanggaran terhadap ketertiban umum. Namun Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat dan Mahkamah Agung menolaknya dengan alasan karena dari pihak PT. Direct Vision yaitu PT. Ayunda Prima Mitra (pemegang saham PT. Direct Vision) mengajukan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan terhadap Astro Group Malaysia. Permasalahan yang diteliti pertama, bagaimanakah ketentuan hukum yang mengatur tentang penolakan eksekusi putusan arbitrase internasional? Kedua, apa yang menjadi alasan-alasan majelis hakim menolak permohonan eksekusi putusan arbitrase internasional? dan ketiga bagaimanakah akibat hukum penolakan majelis hakim atas permohonan non eksekuatur putusan arbitrase internasional dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 808 K/Pdt.Sus/2011? Metode penelitian digunakan yuridis normatif yang mengacu pada norma norma hukum dalam KUH Hukum Perdata, UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, Konvensi New York 1958, Perma Nomor 1 Tahun 1990 tentang Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Luar Negeri di Indonesia, dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 808 K/Pdt.Sus/2011. Disimpulkan pertama, ketentuan hukum yang mengatur penolakan eksekusi putusan arbitrase internasional menurut UUA dan APS serta Konvensi New York 1958 dibolehkan diajukan permohonannya di pengadilan di negara yang termohon tereksekusi, tetapi pembatalan hanya boleh diajukan permohonannya di negara di mana putusan itu dijatuhkan. Kedua, alasan-alasan majelis hakim terhadap penolakan permohonan eksekusi putusan arbitrase internasional yang diajukan oleh PT. Direct Vision tidak memberikan kepastian hukum bagi PT. Direct Vision. Ketiga, akibat hukum penolakan majelis hakim terhadap eksekusi putusan arbitrase internasional dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 808 K/Pdt.Sus/2011 mengakibatkan putusan tersebut menjadi non eksekuatur. Disarankan agar UUA dan APS direvisi dan diatur jangka waktu pendaftaran putusan arbitrase internasional di Indonesia, jangan hanya mengatur jangka waktu untuk pendaftaran putusan arbitrase nasional saja. Agar alasan penolakan putusan arbitrase internasional tidak dicampuradukkan antara alasan penolakan dan pembatalan. Agar PT. Direct Vision menunggu adanya penetapan eksekusi dari Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan atas perkara gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum yang diajukan oleh PT. Ayunda Prima Mitra.