International Commercial Dispute Settlement

Final Paper

Arbitrability of Validity of an Entire Agreement under Indonesian Law:

Case Study of Singapore International Arbitration Centre
ARB No. 221/12/JY & ARB No. 236/13/JY
(PT Bali Resort & Leisure Company V. Ade Chairani Nur Safitri and PT Buahan)

LL.M International Commercial Law 2019/2020

Niken Astiningrum (S3694534)

n.astiningrum@student.rug.nl
Winschoterdiep 46, Groningen 9723 AC
The Netherlands
Introduction

Comprising of 17,504 tropical islands1 with beautiful beaches and volcanoes,

Indonesia has offered massive opportunities for tourism business to spread rapidly in the past
few decades. Among those islands, Bali Island is Indonesia's main tourist destination, with a
significant rise in tourism since the 1980s. Tourism-related business makes up 80% of its
economy. Bali's role as a paradise has been vital for the development of the Indonesian
national economy. In the 1980s about 400,000 tourists a year visited Bali—more than the
whole population of the island in the sixteenth century. Of these over one-quarter were
Australians out for a good time on the beach at Kuta, or in search of the riches promised by
Bali's image. Although that image was severely dented by the Bali terrorist bombings of 2002
and 2006, the intensification of tourism has continued into the twenty-first century.2
The tourism business inevitably leads to the development of various types of
accommodation across the island, in which Ubud is no exception. For tourists coming to Bali,
Ubud is synonymous with traditional Balinese culture.3 One of the most luxurious hotels
known in Ubud is Hanging Gardens of Bali, formerly known as Ubud Hanging Garden. It
was managed and operated by PT Bali Resort & Leisure Company (PT Bali), a foreign
investment company established in Indonesia majorly owned by a Hong Kong company. The
hotel was built according to PT Bali’s standard and specifications in 2005 on patches of land
owned by Ade Chairani Nur Safitri, an Indonesian citizen, and several other Indonesian
citizens. The commercial arrangements and business were stipulated in a Lease Agreement
made by and between the two partners previously on 30 April 2004. It went well until 2013
when Safitri demanded more rights from the hotel business profit, in which it was deemed as
rather excessive by her counterpart.
The disagreement between both parties then led to a bold action committed by Safitri.
She decided to reject the head of terms as a preparation to amend their Lease Agreement,
despite the fact that PT Bali has compromised more than they initially would for such head of
terms. The latter then submit this dispute to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(SIAC) under Indonesian law (as the agreed forum of dispute settlement and governing law,
respectively in the Lease Agreement); under case number ARB No. 221/12/JY. Later in the
end of 2013, Safitri proceeded into a more dauntless action, which is evicting all of the
management of PT Bali from the hotel premises on the ground that the area where the hotel is
built is outside of the tourism zone and hence PT Bali does not have the right to manage the
hotel. This action then provoked PT Bali to file another dispute in SIAC under case number
ARB No. 236/13/JY.
Notwithstanding the fact that PT Bali had indeed suffered loss by Safitri’s actions and
such loss should be able to be recovered in the adjudication of their cases in SIAC, Safitri
decided to go on to defend herself in the tribunal, stating that PT Bali did not have the right to
1
‘16,000 Indonesian Islands Registered at UN’, Jakarta Post (Jakarta, 21 August 2017).
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/08/21/16000-indonesian-islands-registered-at-un.html accessed 21
January 2020.
2
Adrian Vickers, Bali: A Paradise Created, (2nd edn, Tuttle, 2012), 25.
3
Adrian Vickers, Creating Heritage in Ubud, Bali. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332560994
_Creating_heritage_in_Ubud_Bali, accessed 21 January 2020.

1
manage a hotel in her patches of land since it is built outside of the tourism zone despite the
Lease Agreement that they have signed. Hence, according to Indonesian law, building the
hotel on her patches of land will be considered unlawful and the Lease Agreement will have
to be declared as null and void.
In its final award, SIAC rendered that the Lease Agreement is valid after trials of
authentication involving Indonesian law experts on Indonesian civil law. In the end, it also
rendered that Safitri and PT Buahan should pay damages to PT Bali in connection with her
actions. However, another proceeding had been started beforehand at the Denpasar District
Court, Bali, in which Safitri seeking out that the Lease Agreement is to be rendered as null
and void. The Denpasar District Court rendered that it does not have the authority to
adjudicate such matter due to the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement. However, in the
appeal level in Bali High Court as well as in the final cassation level in the Indonesian
Supreme Court, the Denpasar District Court’s decision was ruled out and it is rendered that
the Denpasar District Court does have an authority to adjudicate the case. The main ground of
this refusal according to the courts is that the authority to examine and adjudicate the dispute
in regards to the validity of the Lease Agreement falls into the scope of dispute under the
authority of the Denpasar District Court instead of SIAC, not under the scope of dispute as
agreed by the parties under the Lease Agreement.4
Whilst it appears that the Indonesian courts are in favour of deciding that validity of
an agreement is not arbitrable in this particular case and deliberately contradicting with
SIAC’s award, the reasons behind such decision are yet to be elaborated in the consideration
part of the Supreme Court decision. This paper is written for the purpose to further examine
and understand whether or not determining a validity of an agreement under Indonesian law
is an arbitrable matter, the reasons behind it, and solutions that may be suggested to clarify
this issue in the future.

The Validity of an Agreement under Indonesian Law

The applicable law in relation to the Lease Agreement and the properties is
Indonesian Law, which is expressly stated in clause 17.1 of the Lease Agreement.5 In
accordance with Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code, there are four requirements for an
agreement to be valid, namely: (i) there must be consent of the individuals who are bound
thereby; (ii) there must be capacity of the parties to conclude an agreement; (iii) there must be
a specific subject; and (iv) there must be an admissible cause. The first two of the
requirements are subjective requirements, which makes an agreement becomes “voidable”6 if

4
The Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia, Number 4230 K/Pdt/2015, Judgment, PT Bali Resort & Leisure
vs Ade Chairani Nur Safitri, Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung, 30 December 2015, pp.65, accessed on 21
January 2020.
5
Article 17.1 of the Lease Agreement states: "Applicable law. This Agreement will be governed and construed
in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Indonesia."
6
The original term in Bahasa Indonesia is “dapat dibatalkan”.

2
they are not fulfilled. On the other hand, if one or both of the last two which are objective
requirements are not satisfied, it will lead to a condition of “null and void by law”.7
These two different categories, “null and void by law” and “voidable”, have different
consequences to the agreement as well as the parties who are bound by it. The classic
example of a null and void agreement is if two parties agree to murder another person, which
contains a substantive cause that is against the law.8 Another example is if a shares sale and
purchase agreement is made verbally, that infringes the Company Law Number 40 of 2007
which regulates that such agreement must be made either inauthentic or authentic by a public
notary.9 This is different from the previous example as it concerns the formality of how the
agreement is made instead of what it concludes. In the case of unfulfilled objective
conditions, then an agreement shall be null and void by law. It means that such agreement is
never existed, as well as the commitment to be bound in such agreement. The purpose of the
parties in such agreement to draw up a commitment is failed. Thus, there is no ground (the
agreement) to charge each other before the panel of judges.10
In a case of a voidable agreement, one of the parties has a right to request an
annulment of such agreement, namely the party who is not declared incompetent by law or
the party who did not give his permission (or consent) to enter into such agreement. In
another words, an active proceeding initiated by one of the parties is required to void the
agreement.11 Hence, such agreement is binding the parties, as long as it is not annulled (by
the judges) as requested by one of the parties.
Due to the nature of a null and void agreement that it is considered never existed from
the beginning, the first and foremost legal consequence is also different if compared with a
merely voidable agreement, In many cases in Indonesia, a null and void agreement will lead a
court to render that each of the parties should return all the performance that they have done
for each other. For example, if a sale and purchase agreement is to be rendered null and void,
the seller will be obligated to return the payment to the buyer and the buyer, the object that
the buyer has bought to the seller. This judgment is to assure that due to the non-existence of
the sale and purchase agreement, the condition is reserved to the original state as if there is
never a sale and purchase agreement made between the seller and the buyer.12

7
The original term in Bahasa Indonesia is “batal demi hukum”. In this paper, the term “null and void by law” is
used interchangeably with “null and void”.
8
Article 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code states: “The person who with deliberate intent and with
premeditation takes the life of another person, shall, being guilty of murder, be punished by capital punishment
or life imprisonment or maximum imprisonment of twenty years.”
9
Article 56 of Indonesian Company Law Number 40 of 2007 states that: “The transfer of rights over shares
shall be conducted with a deed of transfer of right.”
10
Subekti, S.H., "Hukum Perjanjian" (Law of Agreement), (12th edn, Intermasa, 1990) 20.
11
Elly Erawati and Herlien Budiono, “Penjelasan Hukum tentang Kebatalan Perjanjian” (Legal Explanation of
Agreement Cancellation), (1st edn, Gramedia, 2010), 4-6, 33-34.
12
As indicated in Number 147 K/Sip/1979, Judgment, Liem Swie Tjhoen and Ie Hong Wan vs. Bintaro
Sumargo (formerly Go Khong Bing), Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung, 25 September 1980, accessed on 21
January 2020. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung,
cancellation of the land sales and purchase deed leads to the decision that the disputed premises are to be
returned to the previous owner.

3
The Parties’ Grounds on the Inadmissible Cause of the Lease Agreement

In the ARB No. 221/12/JY & ARB No. 236/13/JY case, Safitri, as the Respondent,
lying her ground of inadmissible cause of the Lease Agreement on several infringements of
laws and regulations.13 However, among those laws and regulations, only one regulation that
was issued before the date of the Lease Agreement, which is the Decision of the Regent of
Gianyar Number 513 of 2002 concerning Detailed Plan of Ubud Tourism Zone Spatial
Layout dated 23 December 2002. According to the Decision, the location of the hotel is
situated outside of the tourism zone, and the type of property that is allowed to be built in the
hotel’s location is homestay, not hotel. The other laws and regulations are simply dismissed
as strong ground since Indonesian law adheres to non-retroactive effect.14
The definition of admissible cause, however, is rather not completely clear under
Indonesian law. It is generally accepted that an admissible cause can be defined as any cause
that is not infringing the prevailing laws and regulations. There are several doctrines provided
by scholars on this matter, one of those doctrines15 that was particularly quoted by the
Respondent’s expert witness, Prof. Erman Rajagukguk, citing that an inadmissible cause is a
violation on the terms and condition related to the form of legal action, public order, or
moral, and that the law relating to this category is intended to protect the public order. He
further added that any lawful act that has been done between the parties in such null and void
agreement is deemed never to happen.16 By using this interpretation, the Respondent was
quite assured that building a hotel outside of the tourism zone as set out in the Decision, is in
fact, infringing the Decision and hence infringing the law. On the other hand, PT Bali, as the
Claimant, argued that the Gianyar Regent’s Decision does not contain a prohibition of
building a hotel on the said location. Despite the fact that the Decision has indeed set a map
in its attachment providing a spatial layout of areas in Gianyar Regency, it does not express
any prohibition of using the land not in accordance with such planned layout. As such, there
is no inadmissible cause in the Lease Agreement and it should be regarded as valid.

13
The laws and regulations are as follows:
(i) Decision of the Regent of Gianyar Number 513 of 2002 concerning Detailed Plan of Ubud Tourism
Zone Spatial Layout dated 23 December 2002;
(ii) Regulation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Indonesia Number 09/A/KP/XII/2006/01
concerning General Guideline of the Relation Procedure and International Cooperation by the Regional
Government dated 28 December 2006;
(iii) Foreign capital investment license of PT Bali dated 24 July 2003; and
(iv) Regulation of the Minister of Culture and Tourism Number PM.86/HK.501/MKP/2010 concerning
Registration Procedure of Accommodation Providing Business dated 16 November 2010.
14
Under Article 28I of the Fourth Amendment of the Indonesian Constitution 1945, the right not to be tried
under a law with retrospective effect is one of several human rights that cannot be limited under any
circumstances.
15
R. Setiawan, S.H., Pokok-Pokok Hukum Perikatan (The Basics of Contract Law), chapter titled “Kebatalan
dan Pembatalan Perikatan (Nullification and Annulment of Engagement)”, (1st edn., Binacipta, 1987), 122-126.
16
Witness Statement of Prof. Erman Rajagukguk, S.H., LL.M, Ph.D, SIAC ARB 221/12/JY, 31 July 2014, pp.9.

4
Arbitrablity of Validity of an Entire Agreement: SIAC’s Jurisdiction vs Indonesian
Arbitration Law

From the legal standing of the parties above, it is important to accentuate on the
matter of whether or not the Lease Agreement is null and void under Indonesian law. This is
in regards to the enormous legal consequence of a null and void agreement, which is deemed
never existed since the beginning and all the parties shall restore everything to the original
state. Such concept is different than merely paying for damages which is not intended to
restore the condition. Therefore, it becomes an issue when it collides with the authority of an
arbitration tribunal to decide whether or not an agreement is null and void.
In accordance with the Indonesian Arbitration Law Number 30 of 1999, the scope of
arbitration falls only on disputes of a commercial nature, or those concerning rights which,
under the law and regulations, fall within the full legal authority of the disputing parties. In
addition to that, it is also regulated that disputes which may not be resolved by arbitration are
disputes where according to regulations having the force of law no amicable settlement is
possible.17 Referring to this law, validity of an agreement may well fall under the category of
dispute which has the force of law no amicable settlement is possible, due to the nature of an
agreement that is null and void.
There are three reasons why deciding an agreement as null and void may not be
arbitrable. Firstly, two parties cannot find an amicable settlement for an agreement if it is
considered as never existed. From an example of the sale and purchase agreement in the
previous section above, besides being declared never exist; the parties will have to return the
payment and the object. If an agreement is proven and declared to be null and void, then the
court will order the parties to restore their original state. Restoring the condition is not an
amicable settlement, but merely an order that needs to be obligated by the parties. It is indeed
not always possible to do such restoration if the object of the agreement is a service instead of
a good or product. For example, in the case of a null and void construction agreement, it is
impossible for the builder to demolish the building and undo his performance. The same
concept applies in this case between the Respondent and the Claimant, in which restoring the
original state would be too difficult to perform since the Lease Agreement is a lease
agreement complete with the service and management of the hotel that has been implemented
nearly ten years before the dispute started. In Hastjarjo Boedi Wibowo vs. PT Airasia
Indonesia (2012), a passenger (Wibowo) submitted the dispute against the airlines company
(PT Airasia) to Tangerang District Court, after he unsuccessfully claimed the damages caused
by PT Airasia due to significant flight delay.18 PT Airasia argued that the flight agreement
includes a standard clause in which the passenger shall have no right to claim for damages
due to flight delay if such delay is not caused by PT Airasia’s negligence. Wibowo brought
the dispute claiming that the standard clause is included for the purpose to avoid liability, and
hence infringe Article 18(a) of the Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer

17
Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Indonesian Arbitration Law Number 30 of 1999.
18
The Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia, Number 1391 K/Pdt/2011, Judgment, PT Airasia Indonesia vs
Hastjarjo Boedi Wibowo, Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung, 20 November 2012, pp.11, accessed on 25
January 2020.

5
Protection.19 The standard clause of the flight agreement then rendered as null and void, and
the judgment is to obligate PT Airasia to pay for the damages to Wibowo.
Secondly, a null and void agreement may lead to another matter that possibly
intersects with public authority, which then makes the dispute falls outside of civil and
commercial matters. Take an example of a land sale and purchase deed for this particular
condition. If such agreement is rendered null and void after the parties have proceeded with
the transaction including the change of ownership in the relevant Kantor Badan Pertanahan
Nasional (National Land Agency office), an active action from the land agency office to
cancel the registration of the new owner is required to restore the original state. This kind of
consequence involving public authority that may occur from a null and void agreement does
not fall into mere civil and commercial matters. Not to mention that under Indonesian law,
the land sale and purchase deed must be made by a Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (land deed
official), a public official who is given the authority to make authentic deeds in connection
with certain legal actions regarding land rights. 20 A judgment that renders such kind of deed
as null and void will have an impact for the certified land deed official to delete the deed
from his deed register.
Thirdly, assuming that an entire agreement containing an arbitration clause is null and
void, then the arbitration clause in that agreement will be null and void as well since once
again, a null and void agreement is to be deemed as never existed from the beginning. The
Indonesian Arbitration Law Number 30 of 1999 has determined a set of provision to counter
this matter, although unfortunately is not rather clear. Article 10(f) of the law states that an
arbitration agreement shall not become null or void under the “voidance” of the main
contract.21 The term voidance does not distinctly specify the category of such void condition.
Linguistically, it does not refer to whether it is a “voidable” or a “null and void” agreement,
which under Indonesian law can have a significant difference between each terms. In this
particular case, the Respondent utilised such a small gap of different interpretations of the
term “voidance” to strengthen their ground. In their Statement of Defence, the Respondent
pointed out that for reasons set out above, in the absence of an extent of an enforceable
arbitration agreement between the parties, SIAC has no jurisdiction to decide on the dispute
between them and/or to make any order, direction or award which is binding on them.22
From the explanation above, it is thoroughly logical to consider a dispute of the
validity of an agreement falls outside the scope of arbitration under Indonesian law. This
point of view then leads to the consequential result that such dispute shall not be adjudicated
by arbitration tribunal. In this case, SIAC will not have the authority to determine whether or
not the entire Lease Agreement is null and void. For an international reference in regards to
this matter, Brussels I bis Regulation also has the same perception. As a source of law for

19
Article 18(a) of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection states: "In offering the goods and/or
services for trading, the entrepreneurs are prohibited from making or including a standard clause on each
document and/or agreement if it states the transfer of the entrepreneurs' responsibility."
20
Article 1(1) of the Government Regulation Number 37 of 1998 concerning Regulation on Authority of Land
Deed Official.
21
The original term used in the law for “voidance” is “batalnya”, which does not state “batal demi hukum” or
“null and void by law”.
22
Statement of Defence, SIAC ARB 221/12/JY, 21 April 2014, p.6.

6
private international law in European Union member states, in the consideration part it is said
that nothing in the Regulation should prevent the courts of a Member State, when seised of an
action in a matter in respect of which the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement,
from referring the parties to arbitration, from staying or dismissing the proceedings, or from
examining whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of
being performed, in accordance with their national law.23
Notwithstanding the arbitrability of the validity of an entire agreement, the
Respondent’s ground does appear to be a made-up reason to dodge the Claimant’s claims of
loss and damages resulted from the Respondent’s haphazard actions. In Indonesia, this
practice is quite common and has been committed multiple times by many parties, especially
Indonesian companies who went into disputes with foreign investment companies. In order to
escape from obligations to perform the agreements, these Indonesian companies use any
means necessary to render their agreements as null and void by Indonesian courts. The classic
example is if an agreement between an Indonesian and a foreign entity is not made in
Indonesian language, then it infringes the Law Number 24 of 2009 on the National Flag,
Language, Emblem and Anthem.24 Under the Indonesian Civil Code, an agreement involving
an Indonesian entity as a party that is not written in Indonesian language can be regarded as
containing an inadmissible cause, even though substantively it does not made with any
intention against the law. Another example that often ends with disputes in court is derivative
agreements, which matters have not necessarily been understood by judges in Indonesia.
Derivative agreements made by such parties on the basis of freedom of contract are then
requested to be denied and cancelled in court by using immaterial grounds.25
For that reason—despite the fact that there are several grounds available to render an
agreement null and void, the intention of the party asking for such request must be thoroughly
examined. The legal facts in the dispute of the agreement are allegedly often used by one of
the parties by designing the arguments in such a manner with the intention of avoiding or
delaying the fulfillment of their legal obligations. Therefore, the main thing that must be
really considered by the judge in examining and deciding a case in which there is a demand
for rendering the agreement null and void is whether the plaintiff has a good intention in
seeking justice or is in bad faith. Scholars and business law experts have been advising
Indonesian judges to seek for the true intention of these parties to protect the general business
interests in Indonesia. This measure is taken to ensure that the foreign companies who wish to
engage with Indonesian companies will be protected, as well as to guarantee the
implementation of the principle of access to justice and to maintain the rule of justice.26

23
Consideration (12), Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12
December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters (recast).
24
Article 31(1) of the Law Number 24 of 2009 on the National Flag, Language, Emblem and Anthem states:
“Indonesian language must be used in memorandum of understanding or agreements involving state
institutions, government agencies of the Republic of Indonesia, private Indonesian institutions or Indonesian
citizens.”
25
Nindyo Pramono, Problematika Putusan Hakim dalam Perkara Pembatalan Perjanjian (Problematics of
Judge's Decision in Case of Cancellation of Agreement), Mimbar Hukum (22 No. 2), 2020, pp. 224-233
26
Ibid.

7
 It also means that by waiving the matter of validity of an agreement, or supposing that
Indonesian judges no longer grant the request to render an agreement as null and void by
immaterial grounds in order to avoid responsibilities, SIAC will have full authority to
adjudicate the civil and commercial matters set out in the Lease Agreement in this case. It is
clear and undeniable that the Respondent’s action refusing the head of terms of the Lease
Agreement and expelling the Claimant’s staffs from the hotel was frivolous and had caused
loss to the Claimant.

Conclusion

From the explanation above, it is eminently reasonable to assert that the validity of an
entire agreement under Indonesian Law should not be an arbitrable matter. The legal
consequences that follow an agreement that may be rendered as null and void are beyond the
civil and commercial matters that can be adjudicated by an arbitration tribunal.
On that account, it may be convenient to propose to the Indonesian law makers to
regulate a more unambiguous provision in regards to determining whether or not an
agreement is valid, in both voidable and null and void by law categories. Rather than relying
completely on the theories of validity of an agreement under Indonesian Civil Code, there
should be straightforward exceptions for the cases involving irresponsible parties like the
Respondent in this case.27 Moreover, specifically in connection with the arbitration matter,
the Indonesian Arbitration Law Number 30 of 1999 could regulate in more detail for the
enforcement of an arbitration agreement. It can conceivably be done by stressing out that
“voidance” covers both voidable and null and void by law; or by including the validity of an
agreement as civil and commercial matters regardless of the Indonesian Civil Code. In order
to preserve the legal enforcement and to secure the investment climate, this provision should
clearly enshrine the doctrine of separability, in which the arbitration clause is considered to
constitute a separate and autonomous agreement.28
Most importantly, law is created to fulfill the three fundamental pillars of law, which
are legal certainty, justice and purposiveness.29 The law and its interpretation, however
certain it is, shall not hinder the people it protects to obtain justice. In deciding whether or not
a validity of an agreement is arbitrable, the legislative and the judicative ought to trust each
other and work together. As it might be a wishful thought to put absolute faith in the judges
to decide on such matter, actual changes on the laws should be made to ensure the proper
comprehensible guidelines for adjudication. Only then Indonesia would be able to draw level
with the rest of the world, who already rarely make this arbitrability as an issue.

27
To date, there has been no discourse in Indonesia to revise the Indonesian Civil Code. It essentially is the
Dutch Civil Code applied in Indonesia for the white people during colonisation era since 1843.
28
Niek Peters, The Fundamentals of International Commercial Arbitration, (1st edn, Maklu, 2017) 178.
29
Heather Leawood, "Gustav Radbruch: An Extraordinary Legal Philosopher". Washington University Journal
of Law & Policy. (2: 489), pp. 493.

8
 Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Indonesian Laws

Indonesian Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie 1847)

Indonesian Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht voor Nederlands-Indië 1915)
Indonesian Constitution 1945 (4th Amendment, 2003)
Government Regulation Number 37 of 1998 concerning Regulation on Authority of Land
Deed Official
Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection
Decision of the Regent of Gianyar Number 513 of 2002 concerning Detailed Plan of Ubud
Tourism Zone Spatial Layout dated 23 December 2002
Law Number 24 of 2009 on the National Flag, Language, Emblem and Anthem
Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company

International Laws

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 12

December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
and Commercial Matters (recast)

Singapore International Arbitration Centre Cases Law

ARB No. 221/12/JY & ARB No. 236/13/JY (PT Bali Resort & Leisure Company V. Ade
Chairani Nur Safitri and PT Buahan)

Statement of Defence, SIAC ARB 221/12/JY, 21 April 2014

Witness Statement of Prof. Erman Rajagukguk, S.H., LL.M, Ph.D, SIAC ARB 221/12/JY, 31
July 2014

Indonesian Cases Law

The Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia, Number 4230 K/Pdt/2015, Judgment, PT Bali
Resort & Leisure vs Ade Chairani Nur Safitri, Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung, 30
December 2015

The Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia, Number 1391 K/Pdt/2011, Judgment, PT

Airasia Indonesia vs Hastjarjo Boedi Wibowo, Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung, 20
November 2012

9
Secondary Sources:

Books

Elly Erawati and Herlien Budiono, “Penjelasan Hukum tentang Kebatalan Perjanjian”
(Legal Explanation of Agreement Cancellation), (1st edn, Gramedia, 2010)

Niek Peters, The Fundamentals of International Commercial Arbitration, (1st edn, Maklu,
2017)

R. Setiawan, S.H., “Pokok-Pokok Hukum Perikatan” (The Basics of Contract Law), chapter
titled “Kebatalan dan Pembatalan Perikatan (Nullification and Annulment of Engagement)”,
(1st edn., Binacipta, 1987)

Subekti, S.H., "Hukum Perjanjian" (Law of Agreement), (12th edn, Intermasa, 1990)

Adrian Vickers, Bali: A Paradise Created, (2nd edn, Tuttle, 2012)

Journals

Nindyo Pramono, Problematika Putusan Hakim dalam Perkara Pembatalan Perjanjian

(Problematics of Judge's Decision in Case of Cancellation of Agreement), Mimbar Hukum
(22 No. 2), 2020

Heather Leawood, "Gustav Radbruch: An Extraordinary Legal Philosopher", Washington

University Journal of Law & Policy. (2: 489), 2000

Online Sources

Adrian Vickers, Creating Heritage in Ubud, Bali. https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/332560994_Creating_heritage_in_Ubud_Bali, accessed 21 January 2020

10