Interpreting Deception under Indonesian Arbitration Law: Balancing Finality and Legal Certainty 4 2
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v11i3.14405Keywords:
Annulment of Decision, Arbitration, Deception, InterpretationAbstract
This study presents an overview and analysis of the ideal interpretation of "deception" as a basis for annulling arbitral awards. The interpretation of "deception" in Article 70 of Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and its application in Indonesian judicial practice, should not be construed narrowly. The central issue examined is the broad interpretation of this term and the lack of uniformity among judges in qualifying acts as trickery for the annulment of arbitral awards. Existing scholarship has not specifically addressed the interpretation of "deception," instead focusing more generally on the annulment of arbitral awards. This research adopts a normative juridical method, employing both statutory and case law approaches. Legal materials include primary sources, such as arbitration statutes and Constitutional Court decisions related to "deception," as well as secondary sources, including books and journals on arbitration. The analysis utilizes deductive and inductive reasoning to develop prescriptive arguments. The findings demonstrate that "deception" functions as an open norm, which in practice is interpreted not only as classical fraud but also as manipulation of facts, manipulation of the trial process, and deviations in the application of law by arbitrators that influence the issuance of arbitral awards. Judicial interpretations of this term are case-specific and lack a uniform standard, resulting in potential legal uncertainty. Although a broad interpretation is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the arbitration process from fraudulent practices, it may also compromise the principle of finality in arbitral awards.
References
Permana, Afrizal Hadi, and Teuku Syahrul Ansari. “Penerapan Security For Costs Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.” Yustisi 10, no. 3 (2023): 141–51. doi:10.32832/yustisi.v10i3.15207.
Raihan, Andhika Santoso, Elan Jaelani, and Utang Rosidin. “Kedudukan Dan Kekuatan Hukum Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung (Sema) Dalam Hukum Positif Indonesia.” Deposisi: Jurnal Publikasi Ilmu Hukum 1, no. 4 (2023): 07–15. doi:10.59581/deposisi.v1i4.1392.
Andriansyah, Muhammad. “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Nasional Oleh Pengadilan Negeri.” Jurnal Cita Hukum 2, no. 2 (2014). doi:10.15408/jch.v1i2.1472.
Antropov, Nikita A. “On Bad Faith Procedural Conduct in Determining the Case Jurisdiction in a Civil and Arbitration Procedure.” Russian Judge 5 (2024): 15–18. doi:10.18572/1812-3791-2024-5-15-18.
Aqil, Muhammad Arullah, Endang Prasetyawati, and Suta Ramadhan. “Pertimbangan Hakim Terhadap Tindak Pidana Penipuan Dengan Menggunakan Identitas Palsu Dengan Tipu Muslihat Kepada PT. Adira Dinamika Multifinance Tbk Sebagai Korban Dalam Memberikan Hutang Piutang (Studi Putus Nomor 572/ Pid.Sus/2023/PN Tjk).” Sakola: Journal of Sains Cooperative Learning and Law 1, no. 2 (2024): 435–49. doi:10.57235/sakola.v1i2.3352.
Ariprabowo, Tri, and R. Nazriyah. “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Oleh Pengadilan Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014.” Jurnal Konstitusi 14, no. 4 (2018): 701. doi:10.31078/jk1441.
Arlis, Arlis. “The Concept of Legal Intensity: Harmonizing God’s Rule within Constitutional Law.” Walisongo Law Review (Walrev) 5, no. 2 (2023): 245–74. doi:10.21580/walrev.2023.5.2.14123.
Benfa, Ahmad Frisky Paradipta, Marjo Marjo, and Kartika Widya Utama. “Pelaksanaan Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia Pasca-Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/Puu-Xii/2014.” Diponegoro Law Journal 14, no. 2 (2025): 1–15. doi:10.14710/dlj.2025.49488.
Wijaya, Didit Wijayanto. “The Ineffectiveness of Dispute Resolution Through Arbitration According to Indonesian Law No. 30 of 1999 on ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).” Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities 5, no. 3 (2025): 2288–92. doi:10.38035/jlph.v5i3.1433.
Sitohang, Glora Meliana, Jinner Sidauruk, and Sovia Simamora. “Legal Analysis of the Legal Force of Mediation Results as a Dispute Resolution Method in Business Contracts (Based on Law Number 30 of 1999 Concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution).” Journal of Legal and Cultural Analytics 4, no. 1 (2025): 235–46. doi:10.55927/jlca.v4i1.13878.
Hasibuan, Nahda, Budi Sastra Panjaitan, and Annisa Sativa. “Tinjauan Hukum Pidana Islam Terhadap Tindak Pidana Penipuan.” Hukum Dan Demokrasi (HD) 24, no. 4 (2024): 216–30. doi:10.61234/hd.v24i4.52.
Herliana, Herliana, and Meydora Cahya Nugrahenti. “Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Medical Disputes Within Sharia-Compliant Hospitals: The Role of Good Faith in Balancing Patient Justice and Professional Protection.” Mazahib 24, no. 2 (2025): 221–47. doi:10.21093/mj.v24i2.10308.
Jannah, Miftachul, and Rihantoro Bayuaji. “Analisis Hukum Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Nasional Terhadap Kepercayaan Pelaku Usaha.” Hukmy : Jurnal Hukum 5, no. 2 (2025): 944–64. doi:10.35316/hukmy.2025.v5i2.944-964.
Morozova, Natalia A. “Assessment by an Arbitration Court Amicable Agreement Between the Offender and the Administrative Jurisdiction Body.” Rossijskoe Pravosudie 7 (2024): 51–59. doi:10.37399/issn2072-909X.2024.7.51-59.
Natasya, Yunitya Hilda, and Aminah Aminah. “Analisis Yuridis Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Dalam Sengketa Bisnis Berdasarkan Putusan Nomor 524/Pdt.Sus-Arb/2023/Pn Jkt.Tim.” Jurnal Ilmu Multidisiplin 4, no. 5 (2025): 3246–54. doi:10.38035/jim.v4i5.1517.
Nurbaedah, Nurbaedah, and Cristoporus Wahyo Suryo W. “Tinjauan Yuridis Penerapan Pasal 70 Huruf (c) Uu Arbitrase Sebagai Alasan Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Kediri Kota No. 54/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Kdr).” Mizan: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 9, no. 1 (2020): 45. doi:10.32503/mizan.v9i1.1053.
Nurhayati, Yati. “Perbandingan Konsep Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Di Beberapa Negara.” Jurnal Ius Constituendum 7, no. 2 (2022): 335–50. doi:10.26623/jic.v7i2.5700.
Olusesan, Olusesan. “Third-Party Funding And Its Impact On International Investment Arbitration.” UDUS Law Journal 2, no. 2 (2025): 61–74. doi:10.61955/GLOBDD.
Rossdiono, Anangga W., and Muhamad Dzadit Taqwa. “Dampak Dari Putusan No. 15/PUU-XII/2014 Terhadap Eksistensi Arbitrase Di Indonesia: Menguji Kembali Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase.” BANI Arbitration and Law Journal 1, no. 1 (2024): 1–14. doi:10.63400/balj.v1i1.1.
Sebastian, Ashton, and Baidhowi Baidhowi. “Implementasi Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Oleh Pengadilan Negeri.” Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Dan Pendidikan 4, no. 1 (2025): 61–74. doi:10.55606/inovasi.v4i1.4187.
Siregar, Resi Atna Sari. “Analisis Terhadap Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.” Islamic Circle 2, no. 1 (2021): 41–51. doi:10.56874/islamiccircle.v2i1.472.
Sitepu, Rehulina. “Pengaturan Arbitrase Sebagai Penyelesaian Sengketa Alternatif Secara Online.” Jurnal Privat Law 11, no. 1 (2023): 117. doi:10.20961/privat.v11i1.72888.
Septiyanda, Soni, and Abdurrahim Abdurrahim. “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Di Indonesia Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.” Terang : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Sosial, Politik Dan Hukum 2, no. 2 (2025): 127–40. doi:10.62383/terang.v2i2.973.
Stel, Mariëlle, Annika Schwarz, Eric van Dijk, and Ad van Knippenberg. “The Limits of Conscious Deception Detection: When Reliance on False Deception Cues Contributes to Inaccurate Judgments.” Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020): 1331–52. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01331.
Syafrida, Syafrida, and Mangisitua Marbun. “Ketidak Selarasan Putusan Arbitrase Bersifat Final Dan Mengikat (Pasal 60 UUAAPS) Dan Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase (Pasal 70 UUAAPS).” National Journal of Law 5, no. 2 (2021): 612. doi:10.47313/njl.v5i2.1451.
Taufik, Harven Filippo. “Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Akibat Ditemukannya Dokumen Menentukan Yang Disembunyikan: Studi Putusan Ma No. 470b/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2022.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 53, no. 2 (2024): 191–202. doi:10.14710/mmh.53.2.2024.191-202.
Tussupov, Adilbek. Corruption and Fraud in Investment Arbitration. Vol. 22. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90606-1.
Umarudi, Farkhan, Ganindya Kayantri, Nelfia Kusuma, Muhamad Kholid, and Uu Nurul Huda. “Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 126b/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2021 Tentang Putusan Perjanjian Yang Mengandung Tipu Muslihat Dalam Pekerjaan Konstruksi Dihubungkan Dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.” Indonesian Research Journal on Education 5, no. 3 (2025). doi:10.31004/irje.v5i3.2748.
Utami, Tri Rahayu, and Aditya Yuli Sulistyawan. “Urgensi Penalaran Dalam Argumentasi Hukum Guna Mengembangkan Pemikiran Hukum Yang Komprehensif.” Crepido 1, no. 1 (2019): 32–39. doi:10.14710/crepido.1.1.32-39.
Wijayanti, Nurul Wahyu, and Siti Malikhatun Badriyah. “Akibat Hukum Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli Yang Dibuat Dengan Adanya Tipu Muslihat Dan Daya Paksa (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 241/PDT/2020/PT.BDG).” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora Dan Politik 4, no. 4 (2024): 904–13. doi:10.38035/jihhp.v4i4.2108.
Winarta, Frans Hendra. Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2013.
Yani, Fitri, Fani Budi Kartika, Muhammad Ihsan, Tonna Balya, and Mujib Medio Annas. “Analisis Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa Hak Paten Oleh Nokia Terhadap Oppo Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta Dan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.” Lex Justitia 6, no. 2 (2024): 130–42. doi:10.22303/lj.6.2.2024.130-142.
Yulwansyah, Adhitya, and Aria Adipura Nataatmadja. “Urgensi Amandemen Terhadap Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Sebagai Salah Satu Variabel Penting Dalam Pembangunan Ekonomi Indonesia.” BANI Arbitration and Law Journal 1, no. 1 (2024): 43–57. doi:10.63400/balj.v1i1.4.
Zaidah, Yusna. Penyelesaian Sengketa Melalui Peradilan Dan Arbitrase Syari’ah Di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Aswaja Pressindo, 2015.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Ius Constituendum
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The journal holds the copyright for each article published with work licensed simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the authorship and early publication of the work in this journal.
