• 

Execution Of Foreign Awards Through The Central Jakarta District Court

1. Legal Framework for Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia

a. Governing Law

Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law) governs the recognition and enforcement (eksekusi) of foreign arbitration awards in Indonesia. Articles 65–68 specifically relate to international arbitration awards.

Indonesia is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (ratified by Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981), which underpins enforcement requirements such as reciprocity and public order considerations.

b. Authority of Central Jakarta District Court

Only the Central Jakarta District Court has authority to handle:

registration of foreign arbitration awards,

issuance of an execution order (eksekuatur),

and referral to local courts for actual enforcement against debtor’s assets.
This exclusive jurisdiction is stipulated under Article 65 of the Arbitration Law.

c. Main Conditions for Enforcement

To enforce a foreign award, the following conditions must be met:

The award is rendered in a country bound to Indonesia by a treaty such as the New York Convention (reciprocity).

The dispute falls within the scope of commercial law under Indonesian law (trade, banking, finance, etc.).

The award must not contravene Indonesian public order (ketertiban umum).

The award must be registered with the Central Jakarta District Court with authenticated translations and diplomatic confirmation of treaty status.

A writ of execution (eksekuatur) must be issued by the Central Jakarta District Court (or by the Supreme Court with delegation to the Central Jakarta District Court where Indonesia is a party).

d. Public Order Exception and Review

The Court may refuse enforcement on public order grounds, defined broadly to protect fundamental legal, economic, and socio‑cultural norms in Indonesia.

Decisions refusing enforcement can be appealed by cassation to the Supreme Court.

2. Procedure for Execution in Practice

Step‑by‑Step

Registration of the foreign award with the Central Jakarta District Court by the arbitrator or their authorized representative, with translations and diplomatic certification.

Exequatur Application: After registration, the winning party applies for an exequatur.

Issuance of Eksekuatur: If requirements are met, the Chief Judge issues a writ of execution; no further appeal is allowed against a grant.

Enforcement (Execution): Actual enforcement (asset attachment, auction, etc.) is carried out by the competent district court where the debtor’s assets are located.

3. Case Laws on Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

**Case Law 1 — Astro Nusantara International B.V. v. PT Ayunda Prima Mitra

Supreme Court Decision No. 01 K/Pdt.Sus/2010
• The Central Jakarta District Court rejected the execution of a SIAC arbitration award on public order grounds, holding that enforcement would interfere with Indonesian judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld this rejection, confirming the trial court’s judgment.
• The ruling highlights that an arbitral award’s terms that conflict with Indonesian sovereignty/public order can be a valid ground for refusal of eksekuatur.

*Case Law 2 — 67PK/Pdt.Sus‑Arbt/2016 (Judicial Review of 01K/Pdt.Sus/2010)

• Subsequent review by the Supreme Court on the same SIAC award continued to reject enforcement on public order grounds, reaffirming judicial deference to national public order considerations.
• It underlines inconsistent public order interpretations and reinforces the court’s discretion in enforcement cases.

**Case Law 3 — PT Indiratex Spindo v. Everseason Enterprises, Ltd.

Supreme Court Decision No. 219 B/Pdt.Sus‑Arbt/2016
• Determined that Indonesian courts do not have jurisdiction to annul a foreign award because its seat was outside Indonesia (England) — a principle that enforcement (including eksekuatur) is distinct from annulment.
• This confirms scope and limits of Indonesian courts vis‑à‑vis foreign arbitral awards.

**Case Law 4 — PT Daya Mandiri Resources Indonesia & PT Dayaindo Resources Internasional Tbk. v. SUEK AG

Supreme Court Decision No. 674 B/Pdt.Sus‑Arbt/2014
• Confirmed that the location and governing law of the arbitration may affect characterization of awards and related enforcement procedure under Indonesian law.
• Reinforces that foreign awards are generally outside Indonesian annulment jurisdiction but remain enforceable provided other statutory conditions are met.

**Case Law 5 — Harvey Nichols & Co. v. PT Hamparan Nusantara & PT Mitra Adiperkasa Tbk.

Supreme Court Decision No. 631 K/Pdt.Sus/2012
• This decision is cited in academic commentary (e.g., partnership with New York Convention enforcement practice) as part of jurisprudence recognizing foreign awards when criteria are satisfied.
• Shows courts’ application of enforcement principles where no substantive public order conflict is found.

**Case Law 6 — Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU‑XXII/2024

• Clarified the definition of “foreign arbitral award” in the Arbitration Law, removing ambiguity around what constitutes a foreign award for enforcement purposes.
• This interpretive ruling affects execution eligibility under the statutory framework.

4. Key Legal Principles from Cases

a. Foreign Arbitral Award ≠ Automatic Enforcement

Judgments show that mere registration does not guarantee execution — the court assesses public order, treaty reciprocity and procedural compliance.

b. Public Order Exception Can Be Broad

Indonesian courts (e.g., in Astro) have interpreted public order expansively where awards could affect judicial sovereignty or conflict with national legal norms.

c. Enforcement vs. Annulment Jurisdiction

Indonesian courts may enforce foreign awards but generally cannot set them aside on merits; annulment authority lies with courts of the arbitration’s seat.

5. Practical Problems & Interpretation Issues

a. Judicial Discretion on Public Order

The inconsistent application of public order exceptions has been criticized as a source of legal uncertainty affecting enforcement.

b. Procedural Reforms

Recent Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2023 and Constitutional Court clarifications aim to align enforcement more clearly with international standards and reduce unpredictability in execution.

6. Summary

RELATED Blog

Maritime Arbitration in India

Legal recognition of ADR in India

Arbitration law in Afghanistan

Arbitration Law in Albania

Arbitration Law in Algeria

Arbitration Law in American Samoa (US)

Arbitration Law in Andorra

Arbitration Law in Angola

Arbitration Law in Anguilla

Arbitration Law in Antigua and Barbuda