Hubungan Hukum Klausula Arbitrase Dengan Yurisdiksi Pengadilan Negeri

Jeffry Latumahina*



This research analyzed a Distribution Agreement between Roche Indonesia company (“Roche”) and distributing company Perusahaan Dagang Tempo (“Tempo”) which had an arbitration clause and verdict of South Jakarta District Court in Roche-Tempo case consisted of Putusan No. No.454/Pdt.G/1999/PN.Jak.Sel dated 29 May 2000. In distributing Roche’s pharmaceutical products in Indonesian domestic market, Roche had a distribution agreement with Tempo as its sole distributor. During the contract period, Roche terminated part of the contract unilaterally, which suffered Tempo. Tempo then filed a lawsuit against Roche to South Jakarta District Court, which was then rejected by Roche, claiming that the District Court had no jurisdiction over the case since the Distribution Agreement had an arbitration clause stipulating that any dispute must be settled arbitration, not the court. This Research was aimed to observe and to analyze the legal forces and the existences of arbitration clause in the Distribution Agreement viewed from Law No.30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“Arbitration Law”). The research was also to find out whether or not the consideration of the Judge in deciding a dispute of an agreement which involves arbitration clause was in accordance with Arbitration Law. This research applies juridical normative approach with the specification of analysis descriptive research, as well as qualitative normative data analysis method. This research showed that the arbitration clause in the Distribution Agreement had a legal force and binding capacity over Tempo and Roche. Tempo’s denial of this clause by filing the case to the district court was clearly inappropriate and dishonor the agreement. As for the South Jakarta District Court, which claimed that it had jurisdiction over this case was not in accordance with Arbitration Law.  

Keywords: Arbitration Clause; Distribution Agreement; Court Jurisdiction; Roche; Tempo


Klausula Arbitrase; Perjanjian Distribusi; Yurisdiksi Pengadilan


Abdurasyid, P. (2018). Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Suatu Pengantar. Fikahati Aneka.

Adi Nugroho, S. (2017). Penyelesaiaan Sengketa Arbitrase dan Penerapan Hukumnya. Prenada Media.

Adolf, H. (2016). Arbitrase Komersial Internasional (Edisi Revisi) (Revisi). Keni Media.

Bram, D. Al. (2011). Penyelesaian Sengketa Bisnis Melalui Mediasi (E. Wijaya & D. Bram (eds.); 1st ed.). Pusat Kajian Ilmu Hukum Universitas Pancasila.

Friedland, P., & Nyer, D. (2014). Soft Law in International Arbitration (L. W. Neyman & M. J. Radine (eds.)). JurisNet, LLC.

Harahap, Y. (2015). arbitrase (2nd ed.). Sinar Grafika.

Herbots, J. H. (2012). Interpretation of Contracts (J. M. Smits (ed.)). Edward Elgar.

PNJaksel. (2000). Putusan Perkara Perdata No.454/Pdt.G/1999/PNJakSel tanggal 29 Mei 2000, antara PT PT Roche Indonesia dan PT Perusahaan Dagang Tempo.

Publication, I. B. (2015). Indonesia : Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide (1st ed.). Global Investment Center, USA.

Roche, & Tempo. (1996). Distribution Agreement between PT Roche Indonesia and PT Tempo.

Subekti, R., & Tjitrosudibio, R. (2017). Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (Cetakan Ma). Pradnya Paramita.

Temitayo Bello. (2019). Why Arbitration Triumphs Litigation. SSRN, 10.

Yan, H. (2019). The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Choice of Interest Balance in the Two Countries (L. Corby & M. Perry (eds.)). Springer.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN: 2355-0295 || EISSN: 2549-8932


Indexed by:

 dipublikasikan oleh LPPM Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika dengan dukungan Relawan Jurnal Indonesia

Jl. Kramat Raya No.98, Kwitang, Kec. Senen, Kota Jakarta Pusat, DKI Jakarta 10450
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License