K. Fathurahman P.N.J.
"
ABSTRAKKontrak konstruksi merupakan jenis kontrak yang dinamis. Kompleksitas
pekerjaan dan keterlibatan berbagai kepentingan menjadikan kontrak konstruksi
memiliki potensi sengketa di setiap tahapan konstruksi. Oleh karena itu, para pihak
dalam kontrak konstruksi harus mencari metode penyelesaian sengketa memastikan
tidak terhambatnya kegiatan konstruksi. Dalam FIDIC General Conditions of
Contract For Construction (1st Edition, 1999) dikenal mekanisme penyelesaian
sengketa dalam bentuk Dispute Adjudication Board yang putusannya bersifat
mengikat dan harus dijalankan terlebih dahulu oleh para pihak meskipun ada
keberatan dari salah satu pihak. Dari sini terdapat dua permasalahan yang dijadikan
objek penelitian, Pertama, kedudukan Dispute Adjudication Board dalam Undang-
Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian
Sengketa; Kedua, sifat putusan Dispute Adjudication Board yang harus dijalankan
terlebih dahulu dibandingkan dengan putusan pengadilan yang bersifat serta merta
berdasarkan Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia dan pelaksanaannya berdasarkan sifat
putusan yang diterapkan oleh beberapa lembaga adjudikasi di Indonesia. Penelitian
ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif yang ditopang oleh analisa terhadap
peraturan perundang-undangan dan doktrin hukum. Berdasarkan penelitian,
ditemukan bahwa mekanisme Adjudikasi yang melandasi Dispute Adjudication
Board belum diatur oleh UU Arbitrase. Meskipun demikian, terdapat beberapa
peraturan sektoral yang mengatur serta beberapa institusi alternatif penyelesaian
sengketa menjalankan adjudikasi. Terkait dengan putusan serta merta Dispute
Adjudication Board dalam FIDIC General Conditions of Contract For
Construction (1st Edition, 1999) dapat disimpulkan hal tersebut merupakan
kewajiban kontraktual yang ditetapkan para pihak diawal kontrak. Hal ini yang
membedakannya dengan putusan serta merta yang dianut dalam Hukum Acara
Perdata Indonesia di mana putusan serta merta tersebut merupakan kewenangan
hakim untuk menilai dapat atau tidaknya suatu putusan dijalankan terlebih dahulu.
Disamping itu, baik dalam peraturan sektoral yang telah mengatur adjudikasi
maupun peraturan institusi alternatif penyelesaian sengketa dan arbitrase yang
memberikan layanan adjudikasi pada umumnya menentukan putusan adjudikasi
bersifat mengikat namun tidak selalu bersifat serta merta.
ABSTRACTConstruction contract is a dynamic contract. The complexity of the work and the
involvement of many interests make a construction contract has potential disputes
at every stages. Therefore, the parties to the construction contract should seek the
method of dispute resolution which can ensure that the dispute does not hamper the
ongoing work. The FIDIC General Conditions of Contract for Construction (1st
Edition, 1999), recognized a mechanism of alternative dispute resolution by the
form of Dispute Adjudication Board whose decision is binding and the parties shall
give promptly effect to it regardless any objections raised by one of the parties.
From that point, there are two identified issues, as the object of this research, First,
the position of Dispute Adjudication Board under The Law Number 30 of 1999
Regarding Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Settlement; Second, comparison the
nature of immediate binding effect decision between the the Dispute Adjudication
Board's decision under The FIDIC General Conditions of Contract for
Construction (1st Edition, 1999) and court?s decision under the Civil Procedure
Code Indonesia. The comparison also considering the implementation of
adjudication?s decision by several adjudication institutions in Indonesia. The type
of research is legal reseach by analyzing the regulations and law doctrine related
to the issues. The result of this research are, First, the underlying mechanism of
Dispute Adjudication Board, has not been regulated and governed under the
Arbitration Act. Nonetheless, there are some sectoral rules which has govern the
adjudication procedures and has also been conducted by several institutions of
alternative dispute resolution and arbitration in Indonesia as part of their services.
Second, the immediate binding effect of Dispute Adjudication Board's decision can
be concluded as contractual obligations for the parties as set forth at the beginning
of the contract. This is what distinguishes it from the immediate binding effect of
court?s decision as in the Civil Procedure Code Indonesia where the decision is
under the judges authority. Besides that, both in the sectoral regulations that have
been set and/or institutional adjudication of alternative dispute resolution and
arbitration rules, in general, determine that the adjudication decision is binding
but does not necessarily have immediate binding effect"
