The Indonesian private law system does not provide a means to obtain information on the assets owned by a party. There is no provision in Indonesian civil procedure law that authorises the court to issue an asset disclosure order. Additionally, Indonesia currently lacks a centralised database for tracking a party’s asset ownership.

However, under Indonesian law, one can verify the ownership status of a party’s assets to the respective agency. For instance, if one has information that a party owns a specific plot of land, one can verify the validity of this information with the National Land Agency. Similarly, if the information pertains to shares in an Indonesian company, it can be verified with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.

The Indonesian civil courts are empowered to issue various types of judgments and orders depending on the nature and circumstances of a case. The following is a list of the domestic judgments available.

• Dismissal judgment – this is issued if the plaintiff fails to appear on the scheduled court date, or does not send a representative despite having been officially summoned. The judge may then dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit and order the plaintiff to pay the court costs.
• Default judgment – this judgment is issued when the defendant fails to appear at the first hearing after being officially summoned. Their failure to appear will be deemed as a waiver of their right to appear before the court and, as such, entitle the judges to issue a judgment (i) granting the entire claim, (ii) granting part of the claim, (iii) declaring the claim inadmissible, or (iv) rejecting the claim.
• Interim judgment – this is a temporary judgment issued by the court to provide immediate relief or to preserve the status quo pending final resolution of the case. Interim judgments can also be issued by the court during case examination for certain matters, such as judgment to include third parties to the proceedings and judgment to declare that the court has no authority if its absolute authority were to be successfully challenged by either party. Another type of interim judgment is a preliminary injunction which addresses a petition from the disputing party(-ies) with respect to temporary measures prior to issuance of the final judgment – eg, an order to the defendant to temporarily stop construction on disputed land.

• Immediate judgment – this type of judgment can be executed in advance, even if the losing party files an objection or appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court. The granting of this judgment by the court is limited to certain conditions, one of which being that the lawsuit must be supported by evidence in the form an official or unofficial deed, the contents and signature are not challenged. The enforcement of this judgment is subject to the procedure explained in 2.2. Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.
• Final judgment – This judgment conclusively determines the rights of the parties involved and can be categorised as follows.

1. Declaratory decision – this states the rights, title, or status of parties, such as confirming the legality of a marriage or the ownership of property.
2. Constitutive decision – this decision alters legal status or creates a new legal situation, such a divorce decree that ends a marital relationship and changes the status of the parties.
3. Condemnatory decision – this imposes a penalty or obligation on one of the parties, such as ordering the payment of money or the transfer of property, often following a declaratory decision that establishes the parties’ rights.

The procedures to enforce domestic judgments are as follows.

• Submission of the enforcement application to the court that examined the case.
• The court will assess the feasibility of enforcement based on the application.
• If deemed feasible, the applicant will need to pay the court fees.
• The court will then issue an enforcement warning (aanmaning) stipulation, which contains an order to the bailiff to summon the respondent to fulfil the judgment.
• If the respondent is present, an incidental hearing will be held to give them an enforcement warning (aanmaning).
• If the respondent is absent or fails to fulfil the judgment despite being warned in the incidental hearing, the court will proceed with the enforcement.
• The incidental hearing will be documented in the minutes to the meeting (berita acara), which will be the basis of subsequent enforcement procedures.
• The following is the procedure for enforcement based on its type:
1. an order to pay a specified amount of money will be followed by the procedure of executory attachment (sita eksekusi);
2. an order of executory attachment (sita eksekusi) will be enforced by auctioning the respondent’s property, which must first be seized;
3. for a specific action order, if after a warning, the judgment is still not voluntarily enforced, the court may, at the request of the applicant, amend the dictum of the judgment by substituting a specified amount of money; and
4. for the order to empty a land or building (eksekusi riil), the schedule shall be stipulated by the court, after a coordination meeting with the security framework.

The costs charged to enforce domestic judgments may vary in every District Court. As an example, in the Central Jakarta District Court, enforcement costs are as follows:

• enforcement warning: IDR820,000;
• enforcement to confiscate the assets: IDR1,995,000;
• auction of assets: IDR5,090,000 (excluding appraisal fees and auction duty);
• enforcement to empty a building or land: IDR10,135,000; and
• enforcement to carry out an account disbursement: IDR2,605,000.

Please note that the above costs are subject to change annually, and may differ in practice depending on various factors, such as the type or number of items enforced.

The time taken to enforce domestic judgments is not strictly regulated under Indonesian law. According to the Enforcement Guidelines at the District Court issued by the Supreme Court, the only matter regulated is that the head of the District Court is authorised to follow up with the execution process if the enforced party does not fulfil the judgment voluntarily after eight days from the delivery of the enforcement warning in the incidental hearing schedule, or if the enforced party is absent during the hearing.

The timeline of enforcement depends on several factors on a case-by-case basis, such as, among others, the object to be enforced and the circumstances of safety for the enforcement. Based on practices in place, the execution process can span months to years.

Under Indonesian law, there are no available post-judgment procedures for determining the defendant’s assets. The burden of searching for and assessing the defendant’s assets lies with the applicant of enforcement. Please note that assets for which there is unclear information or invalid ownership status may be subject to dispute during enforcement.

Enforcement of a court judgment can be challenged as follows:

• enforced parties can file a challenge on the basis that: (i) the court’s decision has been fulfilled; (ii) seizure conditions are not consistent with or are contrary to laws and regulations; (iii) a seizure is carried out on animals and movable goods used for livelihood; and
• third parties who are the registered owner, the holder of a mortgage, or tenant of the land to be enforced can also file a challenge to enforcement on the grounds that it is detrimental to their rights.

For a default judgment, enforcement will be postponed if the defendant files a challenge (verzet) against the judgment, with the substance addressed regarding the consideration of the judgment and the arguments of the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Please note that the head of the District Court which performs the enforcement has the discretion to temporary suspend the enforcement. The suspension is casuistic and exceptional, such as on the basis of a challenge to enforcement as explained above, or due to physical attacks on officers when performing the enforcement.

Aside from the above-mentioned challenges to the enforcement of domestic judgments, there are also conditions where a judgment may be declared unenforceable (see 2.6 Unenforceable Domestic Judgments).

Under Indonesian civil procedural law, a judgment that is already final and binding may be declared unenforceable by the head of the District Court under the following conditions:

• the judgment is only declaratory or to establish a legal relationship;
• the asset of the enforced party is not available;
• the object of enforcement is in the possession of a third party;
• enforcement is not enforceable against the tenant;
• the land or building is not clearly demarcated;
• the object to be enforced does not conform with the object mentioned in the judgment;
• the judgment is impracticable to enforce due to the object of enforcement is destroyed;
• the status of the land to be enforced changed into land occupied by the state;
• the object of enforcement is located abroad;
• there are judgments that contradict one other on the same object, which must be scrutinised as to the extent of the contradiction; and
• the judgment concerning identity does not conform with the facts on the spot.

Except for a judgment that is only declaratory, or to establish a legal relationship, the head of the District Court is not authorised to stipulate that a judgment is unenforceable prior to the entire enforcement process being conducted. The declaration of unenforceability must be based on the minutes prepared by the bailiff ordered to enforce the judgment.

Indonesia does maintain a register for judicial judgments of all levels (the “Directory”), although not all judgments are included, and the process for uploading judgments can take time.

Although not all cases are available in the Directory, when they are, the Directory provides basic details such as case information (case number, court level, classification, keywords), court and judge information (name of the judges and clerk), and details of the judgment (the result of the verdict, finality status, verdict date, registration date, abstract). The Directory can also provide access to the copy of the judgment at all levels.

Separately, there is also a Case Tracking Information Registry (Sistem Informasi Penelusuran Perkara (SIPP) that is maintained independently by the relevant courts and frequently updated as a case goes on. Users typically refer to the SIPP to monitor the development of the cases. Although SIPP also contains preliminary information about a case, it does not provide access to a copy of the judgment.

Generally, even though the award debtor has satisfied the judgment, any information relating to the case either in the Directory or SIPP will not be removed.

Indonesiais not a party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.

If a successful party wishes to enforce a foreign court judgment against the losing party, the former must initiate a new case or fresh claim in the relevant Indonesian court, where the foreign court judgment may be submitted as evidence in that new claim. The panel of judges will then determine the probative value of the judgment.

However, Indonesia ratified the 1958 New York Convention under Presidential Decree No 34 of 1981. The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has also been regulated in Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Pursuant to the regulation, Indonesia can recognise and enforce specifically foreign arbitral awards.

The variations in approach to enforcing foreign court judgments are not applicable, since Indonesia does not have a legal source of bilateral or multilateral treaties to recognise such judgments.

However, please see 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards for our insight on the variations in approach to enforce foreign arbitral awards.

Under Indonesian laws, foreign court judgments cannot be enforced directly. A new lawsuit must be filed in an Indonesian court to obtain a domestic court judgment, and only then can the enforcement be implemented.

However, please see 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards for our comments on the categories of foreign arbitral awards not enforced.

The enforcement process for foreign court judgments is not applicable under Indonesian law as Indonesia is not a party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. Please see 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards.

The cost and time taken to enforce foreign court judgments are not applicable under Indonesian laws as Indonesia is not a party of any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.

However, please see 4.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Arbitral Awards.

As foreign court judgment is unable to be enforced in Indonesia, challenging the enforcement of foreign court judgments consequently are also not applicable.

However, please see 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.

Public Policy Exception

One of the grounds for non-enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is the award being in violation of “public policy”. However, there is no specific definition of what can amount to public policy, allowing the Central Jakarta District Court considerable discretion in constituting such a violation. Several cases have seen courts refuse enforcement of arbitral awards on the grounds of public policy violations citing concerns over Indonesian sovereignty or fundamental legal principles.

Recent Supreme Court Regulation No 3 of 2023 on Procedure for Appointment of Arbitrator by the Court, Right to Challenge, Examination of Application for Execution, and Annulment of Arbitral Award (“the Regulation”) attempts to clarify this by aligning public policy with essential principles necessary for Indonesia’s legal, economic, and socio-cultural systems. However, the practical impact of this remains to be fully realised.

Procedural Hindrances in Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards

Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Indonesia involves several administrative and procedural hurdles and enforcing parties must provide the following.

• An original or authenticated copy of the foreign arbitral award and the respective agreement, both authenticated according to the provisions for foreign documents, along with their official translations into the Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia).
• A statement from a diplomatic representative of Indonesia in the country where the award was rendered that must confirm that both countries are bound by a bilateral or multilateral treaty on the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards.
• Proof of identity for the arbitrator and the person granted power of attorney to register the award.

Navigating the above requirements can be time-consuming, and involves dealing with bureaucratic processes (See 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards for more information).

The enactment of the Regulation has introduced an additional requirement, power of attorney from the arbitration institution itself, under certain circumstances. This can be particularly burdensome for international institutions unfamiliar with Indonesian legal practices, potentially causing significant delays in the enforcement process. Acquiring these documents necessitates a thorough understanding of both local and international legal frameworks, adding to the complexity and duration of enforcement efforts.

Enforcement of Tribunal-ordered Interim Measures

While arbitral tribunals are vested with the power to order interim measures under Indonesian Arbitration Law, these measures often lack practical enforceability. Orders such as asset freezes or injunctions typically require court intervention to be effective. The recent regulation aims to address this by allowing applications for collateral confiscation to be filed with the courts. However, the mechanism for enforcing other forms of interim measures remains unregulated, leaving a gap in the practical application of tribunal-ordered interim relief. The overall effectiveness of these provisions is yet to be seen.

Definition of Domestic and Foreign Arbitral Awards and its Conundrum

Under Law No 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“Arbitration Law”), an arbitral award is deemed foreign if the seat of arbitration or the administering institution is outside Indonesia. This distinction is crucial, because domestic and foreign awards undergo different procedural treatments for enforcement and annulment.

For example, the setting-aside mechanism under Article 70 of Indonesian Arbitration Law applies only to domestic awards, not to foreign laws. Despite this clear distinction, there have been instances where parties attempted to misclassify foreign awards as domestic to exploit Article 70.

In the Pertamina v Lirik Petroleum case, there was an attempt to set aside an ICC Arbitral Award using grounds under Article 70 of the Indonesian Arbitration Law. The Supreme Court, however, ultimately upheld the foreign status of the arbitral award, as the arbitration was subjected to ICC Rules – rules derived from international arbitral institution. This decision reinforced the principle that Indonesian courts cannot annul foreign arbitral awards, even though the High Court of Jakarta initially overstepped its jurisdiction.

Indonesia’s approach to enforcement varies between domestic and foreign arbitral awards due to differing legal and procedural requirements (See 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards).

Domestic Arbitral Awards

In order to be enforced, the relevant District Court will need to examine whether the domestic arbitral award fulfils the requirements of the following Articles of Arbitration Law:

• Article 4 inter alia concerning whether a valid arbitration agreement exists;
• Article 5 inter alia on whether the issue falls within the scope of commercial coverage); and
• Article 62 inter alia as to whether the domestic arbitral award violates public morals and order.

Foreign Arbitral Award

Indonesia has specific provisions under its Arbitration Law stipulating requirements for foreign arbitral awards to be enforced, as follows.

• Bilateral or multilateral treaty requirement – the award must be issued by an arbitrator or arbitral tribunal in a country that has a bilateral or multilateral treaty with Indonesia regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
• Commercial scope – the award must pertain to matters that fall within the scope of commercial law as defined by Indonesian law.
• Public order compliance – the award must not contravene Indonesian public order.
• Exequatur requirement – the award must obtain an exequatur (execution order) from the chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court.
• State involvement – if the award involves the Republic of Indonesia as a party, it must obtain an exequatur from the Indonesian Supreme Court, which is then forwarded to the Central Jakarta District Court for execution.

Further, although not explicitly addressed, there has been an instance where a Central Jakarta District Court refused to grant an exequatur to enforce an award on preliminary issues of jurisdiction, interim anti-suit injunction and joinder since the Central Jakarta District Court deemed such award to be lacking final award attributes (Astro Nusantara et al v Ayunda et al).

It remains to be seen whether, by virtue of the recent enactment of the Regulation that allows enforcement of partial award, the Central Jakarta District Court will reconsider its approach as it did in Astro Nusantara et al v Ayunda et al.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

The process for enforcing domestic arbitral is as follows.

Registration of the award

• Timeline – the original or an authenticated copy of the arbitral award must be submitted and registered by the arbitrator or their proxy with the relevant District Court registrar within 30 days from the date the award is announced.
• Procedure – the submission is documented, and the registration is signed by both the registrar and the submitting party, creating a registration deed.
• Consequence of non-compliance – failure to register within 30 days renders the award unenforceable.

Enforcement of the award

• Initiating enforcement – if the parties do not voluntarily comply with the award, enforcement can be requested from the District Court chairman by one of the disputing parties.
• Issuance of enforcement order – the chairman issues an enforcement order within 30 days of the execution request.
• Pre-order examination – the chairman ensures the award complies with Article 4 (existence of valid arbitration agreement between the parties) and Article 5 (the issue falls within the scope of commercial coverage) of Arbitration Law and does not conflict with public morality and order before issuing the order.

Execution of the award

• Documentation – the enforcement order is written on the original and authenticated copies of the arbitral award.
• Procedure – the award is executed in accordance with civil procedure rules for final and binding judgments.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

The process for enforcing foreign arbitral awards is as follows.

Registration of the award

• Submission – the foreign arbitral award must be submitted and registered by the arbitrator or their proxy with the Registrar of the Central Jakarta District Court.
• Attachments required:
• power of attorney of the arbitrator, in accordance with the provisions regarding the authentication of foreign documents, and its official translation into Indonesian;
• original or authenticated copy of the foreign arbitral award and its official translation in Indonesian;
• original or authenticated copy of the arbitration agreement and its official translation in Indonesian; and
• statement from the Indonesian diplomatic representative in the country where the award was rendered, confirming a bilateral or multilateral treaty with Indonesia regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Exequatur phase

• Submission – if the award debtor fails to voluntarily comply with the foreign arbitral award, either party can request an application of exequatur to the head of the Central Jakarta District Court.
• Examination – the head of the Central Jakarta District Court examines the application for exequatur.
• Approval – if approved, the head endorses the execution order on the original and authenticated copies of the award.
• Refusal – if refused, the head issues a judgment which can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Execution of the Award

• Submission – after obtaining the exequatur, the award creditor may apply to the Central Jakarta District Court for a writ of execution under general rules of enforcement under Indonesian Civil Procedures.

Special procedure for awards involving Indonesia

• Submission to Supreme Court – if the Republic of Indonesia is a party, the application, along with required attachments, is first submitted to the Central Jakarta District Court and then forwarded to the Supreme Court.
• Supreme Court examination – the Supreme Court examines the application.
• Approval – if approved, the Supreme Court issues a judgment and delegates the enforcement to the head of the Central Jakarta District Court.
• Refusal – if refused, the Supreme Court issues a judgment which can be appealed.

Additional Provisions Under the Regulation

The Regulation introduced several new features and requirements that are relevant for enforcement of arbitral awards in Indonesia. Several examples worth noting are presented below.

• Institutional arbitration – if the arbitrator is appointed by an arbitration institution, the institution or its proxy handles the registration. This is applicable for both domestic and foreign arbitral awards.
• Partial enforcement – requests for enforcement of a partial award can be made.
• Electronic submission – enforcement applications can be submitted electronically through the court’s information system.
• Simultaneous challenge and enforcement applications – for a domestic arbitral award, if there are simultaneous applications for annulment and enforcement, the enforcement is stayed until a decision on the annulment is made.

The exact costs and time required to enforce arbitral awards in Indonesia can vary significantly depending on numerous factors. While it is challenging to provide precise figures, we can outline the key aspects that influence the cost and duration of the enforcement process. This will help readers estimate potential expenses and timeframes based on their specific circumstances.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

Enforcing domestic arbitral awards in Indonesia typically involves costs arising from the registration and enforcement processes. Each district court sets a fixed fee, which may change annually. For instance, the registration fee for a domestic arbitral award at the Central Jakarta District Court is set at IDR145,000 (using the 2023 rate). Additional costs may be incurred during the execution process, including fees for summoning parties, execution, and auctioning assets.

Nevertheless, the cost can vary significantly should there be any significant resistance from the award debtor.

Arbitration Law or the Regulation do not specify a timeline for the court to complete the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. However, once the execution order is issued, and provided there are no significant objections from the award debtor, the enforcement is relatively fast.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

Enforcing foreign arbitral awards involves higher costs than domestic awards due to their international nature. On top of the court-imposed registration and execution fees, additional costs are incurred for translation purposes. Another cost parties might incur would be for acquiring and authenticating required power of attorney from the arbitrator and the appointing institution, as well as a statement from the relevant Indonesian embassy that the country where the award is rendered is a party to the New York Convention.

The court also implements higher fixed fees for the registration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. For instance, the registration fee for a foreign arbitral award is set at IDR665,000. Additional costs apply for summoning international parties, and covering the rogatory costs of the recipient country.

Similar to domestic awards, there is no specific deadline prescribed under the arbitration law and the regulation for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. In practice, however, the lengthy process typically occurs during the exequatur phase. The court has no deadline for issuing an exequatur, and the parties can raise several challenges, rendering the process potentially lengthy. Once the exequatur is obtained, however, the enforcement process follows the procedures for domestic court judgments, which is relatively fast provided that there is no further substantial resistance from the other party.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

For domestic arbitral awards, the primary method of challenging enforcement is through the setting-aside procedure under Article 70 of the Indonesian Arbitration Law (Law No 30 of 1999). This provision allows a party to request annulment of the arbitral award on specific grounds, as follows.

• Forgery – if a letter or document submitted in the proceedings is acknowledged to be forged or is declared forged after the award has been rendered.
• Concealed decisive document – if it is discovered that there is a decisive document that was not disclosed by the opposing party during the arbitration.
• Fraud – if the award was based on fraud involving one of the parties connected to the proceedings.

These challenges must be filed within 30 days of the date that the award is received by the party seeking annulment. The application to set aside the award is made to the District Court where the arbitration took place.

Please also note that, according to the Regulation, if there are simultaneous applications for annulment and enforcement of a domestic arbitral award, the enforcement is stayed until a decision on the annulment is made.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

For foreign arbitral awards, Arbitration Law and the Regulation do not explicitly provide a method for challenging the enforcement of an arbitral award. The authority to rule on the enforcement of foreign awards lies with the Central Jakarta District Court.

However, we have observed a practice where parties file resistances during the exequatur phase and the court subsequently considers them, although such procedures are not covered in the applicable laws and regulations.

After the issuance of the Regulation clarifying this procedure, it remains to be seen whether this will change the court’s approach to entertaining resistance filings or appeals against exequatur decisions.