Dampak dari Putusan No. 15/PUU-XII/2014 terhadap Eksistensi Arbitrase di Indonesia: Menguji Kembali Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase

AbstrakSesuai dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014, Penjelasan Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 Republik Indonesia; sehingga tidak lagi memiliki kekuatan hukum yang mengikat. Substansi dari penjelasan tersebut mengharuskan pemohon yang berusaha membatalkan putusan arbitrase untuk terlebih dahulu membuktikan alasan pengajuan mereka di Pengadilan Negeri. Berdasarkan putusan ini, syarat tersebut tidak lagi ada, sehingga mempermudah proses pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Di sisi lain, keberadaan Pasal 70 undang-undang itu sendiri masih menjadi perdebatan. Dalam perkembangannya, pasal ini memberikan berbagai implikasi hukum yang negatif bagi lembaga penyelesaian sengketa di luar pengadilan, termasuk lembaga arbitrase, serta pihak-pihak yang menyelesaikan sengketa melalui arbitrase. Meskipun demikian, mekanisme ini secara normatif bertujuan untuk mengoreksi kesalahan formal dalam putusan arbitrase. Tulisan ini berusaha menggambarkan rasionalisasi di balik perlunya mempertahankan atau menghilangkan mekanisme tersebut dengan meninjau kembali Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014. Sebagai kesimpulan di akhir artikel, disarankan agar Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa perlu dihilangkan atau setidaknya dibatasi secara ketat. AbstractPursuant to Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XII/2014, the Elucidation of Article 70 of the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Law was contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; thus, it no longer had binding legal force. The substance of the elucidation required applicants attempting to annul an arbitral award to first prove the grounds for their application before the District Court. According to this decision, such a requirement did not longer exist, thus it would be easier to annull an arbitral award. On the other hand, the existence of Article 70 of the law itself is still debatable. In its development, this article has provided various legal implications that have negative values for dispute resolution institutions outside the court, including arbitration institutions, as well as parties resolving their disputes through arbitration. Nonetheless, this mechanism is intended normatively to correct formal errors in an arbitral award. This paper attempts to describe the rationalization behind the need to maintain or eliminate such a mechanism by re-examining Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XII/2014. As a resolution at the end of the article, it is Article 70 of the Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that should need to be eliminated or at least strictly limited.