ANALISIS YURIDIS PEMBATALAN PUTUSAN BAPMI OLEH PUTUSAN PENGADILAN (STUDI PERKARA NOMOR 513/PDT.G-ARB/2012/PN.JKT.PST)
ABSTRACT: Settlement of
business disputes be an option for the parties to the dispute are usually used
method of dispute resolution through alternative dispute resolution. Choice of
disputeresolution in the capital market conducted litigation in general through
the arbitrationinstitution Indonesian Capital Market Arbitration Board (BAPMI).
BAPMI arbitration decision issued BAPMI-004 / ARB-03 / VIII / 2011 on the
application submitted by PT Bank Permata. BAPMI verdict obliging PT Nikko
Securities to replace most of the payments made by PT Bank Permata to
investors. However, PT Nikko Securities filed a cancellation decision BAPMI the
Central Jakarta District Court by reason of deception in BAPMI decision. BAPMI
verdict is final, binding and must be implemented immediately canceled by Courtdecision
No. 513 / PDT.G-ARB / 2012 / PN.JKT.PST. This type of research can be
classified into types of normative legal research is research that emphasizes
the literature data, cover the entire legislation relating to the object of research.
Source of data used is primary data, secondary data and data tertiary. Analysis
of the data used in this study is qualitative. BAPMI ruling has the force of
law, as stated in Article 48 of the Decree of the Indonesian Capital Market
Arbitration Board Number: Kep-02 / BAPMI / 11.2009 of theRules and Events
Indonesian Capital Market Arbitration Board. The head of the writtendecision
BAPMI "SAKE OF JUSTICE UNDER THE ONE ALMIGHTY GOD" which means
decision executorial BAPMI have legal force and are binding on the parties.
District Court Judge ruled Court No. 513 / PDT.G-ARB / 2012 / PN.JKT.PST
related cancellationBAPMI decision. Decision handed down by the judge is not
based on proof of their ruseconducted by BAPMI and PT. Bank Permata Tbk.
Elucidation of Article 70 of LawArbitration stated that in order to be able to
say meets the requirements as stated in Article 70 of Law Arbitration, the need
for advance ruling which stated the presence / absence of thefraudulent action.From
the research, there are two basic problems that can be concluded, first, thedecision
BAPMI already have legal force. Second, evidence has been the fulfillment of
theelements of fraud are not carried out by a judge. Advice, First, the
arbitration award is final and binding with legal force by the parties should
be implemented immediately. The judge can carry out his duties by ordering the
execution of the arbitral award is registered to the court. Second, the trial
judge should carry out the cancellation of arbitration in accordance with the
Civil Procedure Code, that the cancellation of arbitral awards especially BAPMI
decision is consistent with the rule of law.
Penulis: Yohanna Petresia
Kode Jurnal: jphukumdd151140
