The 2025 Rules of Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia (“BANI”), Indonesia’s leading arbitral institution for domestic and international commercial disputes, mark a significant milestone with the formal introduction of emergency arbitration into Indonesia’s arbitral framework.
This mechanism allows parties to seek urgent interim relief prior to the constitution of a full arbitral tribunal. The introduction of emergency arbitration aligns BANI with leading international arbitral institutions, such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) and the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), both of which have provided for emergency interim measures since early 2010 and 2012, respectively.
While this reform is timely and commendable, the enforceability of emergency arbitral awards under Indonesia’s current legal system remains open to question. The core difficulty lies in the absence of an explicit statutory basis for the recognition and enforcement of emergency arbitrator decisions under Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“Law 30/1999”).
Against this backdrop, we examine key issues arising from the current framework governing emergency arbitration in Indonesia.
Finality and Binding Effect of the Emergency Arbitrator’s Award
Article 7(1) of Attachment I to the 2025 BANI Rules states that an emergency arbitrator’s award is final and binding, requires immediate compliance, and waives the parties’ right to appeal or seek judicial review before the District Court. While this provision is clearly intended to strengthen the effectiveness of emergency relief, it raises concerns regarding its consistency with Article 70 of Law 30/1999, which permits the annulment of arbitral awards on limited grounds. As institutional arbitration rules cannot override statutory law, it is unclear whether this waiver can preclude an application for annulment under national law.
Further uncertainty arises from the meaning of the term “final and binding” in the context of emergency arbitration. Under the rules of international arbitral institutions, such as SIAC and the ICC, emergency awards are generally binding only on a provisional basis and remain subject to confirmation, modification or revocation by an arbitral tribunal which presides on the merits of the dispute. By contrast, the 2025 BANI Rules do not expressly clarify whether the tribunal on the merits can affirm, modify, or set aside an emergency arbitrator’s award.
Since emergency measures are provisional by nature, the award should be seen as temporarily binding pending the final award. To improve legal certainty and align with international practice, BANI should clarify that the tribunal which presides over the merits of the dispute retains authority over emergency awards.
Deadline for Issuing an Emergency Award
The 2025 BANI Rules stipulate that emergency arbitration proceedings must reach a conclusion within a period of 14 days, with an additional 7 days available if deemed necessary by the relevant parties. However, the precise deadline for the issuance of the emergency award remains equivocal, leaving room for interpretation and potential delays.
In contrast, the SIAC Rules clearly require the emergency arbitrator to issue an order or award within 14 days of appointment, while the ICC Rules mandate issuance within 15 days of the file’s transmission to the emergency arbitrator. This level of specificity provides parties with greater procedural certainty and helps ensure timely resolutions.
Article 59(1) of Law 30/1999 mandates the District Court to register arbitral awards within 30 days of issuance, but the BANI Rules do not specify if this applies to emergency awards. Clarifying these timing and registration procedures could help improve transparency and align with Indonesia’s legal framework.
Application of Calendar Days
Article 1(2)(m) of the 2025 BANI Rules provides that “days” refers to calendar days, which may create uncertainty when deadlines fall on days when offices are closed, potentially affecting parties’ ability to comply within the prescribed timeframe.
To illustrate this point, consider a scenario in which the BANI chairman appoints an emergency arbitrator on a Friday. In such a case, the two-day deadline to file a challenge would expire on Sunday, during which offices are closed. Although BANI informally extends such deadlines to the next business day, this is not explicitly stated in the rules. To eliminate ambiguity and protect parties’ procedural rights, it might be advisable for BANI to amend the rules to formally extend deadlines falling on non-business days to the following business day.
Suspension of Proceedings During a Challenge
The 2025 BANI Rules allow parties to challenge the appointment of the emergency arbitrator. However, they do not explicitly state whether the challenge process suspends the emergency procedure. This lack of clarity means that, in the absence of an automatic suspension, the emergency proceedings may continue despite the challenge, potentially leading to conflicting decisions or procedural complications.
This is in contrast to the SIAC Rules, which clearly provide for the suspension of proceedings during the challenge process. Technical guidance from BANI on this matter would help provide greater certainty for parties.
Consequences of Non-Compliance by the Losing Party
In the event that the losing party refuses to comply with the emergency arbitrator’s decision within the specified time period, enforcement follows Articles 62 – 64 of Law 30/1999 and Articles 8 – 15 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2023 regarding Procedures for the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Court, Rights of Rejection, Examination of Petitions for Enforcement and Annulment of Arbitration Awards.
Under this framework, the emergency arbitrator’s decision, deemed final and binding, must be enforced by the head of the competent District Court within 30 days of registration. Enforcement follows the same procedures as for final and civil judgments. To ensure legal certainty and effective enforcement, it should be explicitly confirmed that emergency arbitrator decisions are executed through the District Court pursuant to the enforcement regime under Law 30/1999.
Conclusion
The 2025 BANI Rules establish a fast, flexible, and tightly time-bound framework for emergency arbitration, reflecting BANI’s commitment to aligning Indonesia’s arbitral practice with prevailing international standards. Despite these advances, the practical enforceability of emergency arbitrator decisions under Indonesian law remains a challenge.
To better align the emergency arbitration regime under the 2025 BANI Rules with international practice and to ensure legal clarity and certainty for disputing parties, several aspects of the Rules warrant further clarification. In particular, BANI might confirm: (i) that the main arbitral tribunal has the authority to affirm, reconsider, modify, or vacate emergency arbitrator awards; (ii) the precise operation and possible extension of time limits for issuing emergency arbitration awards; (iii) the treatment of “calendar days” where deadlines fall on non-business days; (iii) the applicability of any suspension of deadlines during the challenge process; and (iv) the enforceability of emergency arbitrator awards through the District Court under the framework of Law 30/1999. (8 January 2026)
