Sudargo Gautama and the Development of Indonesian Public Order: a Study on the Application of Public Order Doctrine in a Pluralistic Legal System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sudargo Gautama and the Development of Indonesian Public Order: A Study on the Application of Public Order Doctrine in a Pluralistic Legal System Yu Un Oppusunggu A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2015 Reading Committee: John O. Haley, Chair Michael E. Townsend Beth E. Rivin Program Authorized to Offer Degree School of Law © Copyright 2015 Yu Un Oppusunggu ii University of Washington Abstract Sudargo Gautama and the Development of Indonesian Public Order: A Study on the Application of Public Order Doctrine in a Pluralistic Legal System Yu Un Oppusunggu Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor John O. Haley School of Law A sweeping proviso that protects basic or fundamental interests of a legal system is known in various names – ordre public, public policy, public order, government’s interest or Vorbehaltklausel. This study focuses on the concept of Indonesian public order in private international law. It argues that Indonesia has extraordinary layers of pluralism with respect to its people, statehood and law. Indonesian history is filled with the pursuit of nationhood while protecting diversity. The legal system has been the unifying instrument for the nation. However the selected cases on public order show that the legal system still lacks in coherence. Indonesian courts have treated public order argument inconsistently. A prima facie observation may find Indonesian public order unintelligible, and the courts have gained notoriety for it. This study proposes a different perspective. It sees public order in light of Indonesia’s legal pluralism and the stages of legal development. With regard to responding to public order argument this study finds that the courts faced systemic and practical challenges. Legal pluralism – in its broadest sense – creates confusion on the part of the court. The stages of legal development shows that (in)dependent judiciary reacted differently to public order argument. Inconsistent treatment is iii due to lack of operable framework. The study finds that Gautama doctrine for Indonesian public order can provide consistent application and coherence to the legal system. The doctrine can serve as cohesion for the legal system and an operable framework for Indonesian private international law by striking a balance between legal unity and legal pluralism, national interests and international demands. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Maps xii List of Tables xiii Abbreviations xiv Introduction 1 I The Problem 1 II The Questions 4 II Propositions and Definitions 5 Chapter 1: Developing Coherence Out of Pluralism through Law 7 1.1 Overview 7 1.2 Section A: The Archipelago that Became Indonesia 10 1.2.1 Brief Historical Account 10 1.2.2 A Twentieth Century Invention 15 1.3 Section B: The Jungle of Legal Pluralism 21 1.3.1 Oversimplification about the Legal System 21 1.3.2 A Hodgepodge Legal System 22 1.3.2.1 Adat Law Aspect of the Legal System 24 1.3.2.2 Islamic Law Aspect of the Legal System 28 1.3.2.3 Civil Law Aspect of the Legal System 29 1.3.2.4 Common Law Aspect of the Legal System 32 1.3.3 Fabricating National Legal System 32 1.3.3.1 Netherlands Indies Legal System 32 1.3.3.2 Impact of Japanese Occupation 33 1.3.3.3 Stages of Legal Development 34 1.3.3.3.1 Struggle for Independence and Pretext for Guided 35 Democracy (1945-1959) 1.3.3.3.2 Sukarno Guided Democracy (1959-1966) 37 1.3.3.3.3 Suharto New Order (1966-1998) 40 1.3.3.3.4 The Reformasi (1998-present) 44 1.4 Section C: Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution 46 1.4.1 Pancasila 46 1.4.2 The 1945 Constitution 47 1.4.3 Rallying Points of the Nation 48 1.5 Conclusion 49 v Chapter 2: Gautama Public Order Doctrine and Its Genius 51 2.1 Overview 51 2.2 Section A: The Jurist-cum-Lawyer Sudargo Gautama 54 2.2.1 Gautama the Jurist 54 2.2.2 Gautama the Lawyer 57 2.2.3 Gautama and the Development of Indonesian Private International Law 59 2.3 Section B: Developing Doctrine for Indonesian Private International Law 62 2.3.1 Characteristics and Functions of Public Order 62 2.3.2 Proposal for Indonesian Public Order 66 2.3.2.1 Public Order in German and Japanese Private International Law 69 2.3.2.2 Prescriptive Function of Public Order 71 2.3.2.3 Applying Public Order to Legal System 72 2.3.2.4 Triggering-Factor to Public Order 73 2.3.2.4.1 Violation of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution 74 2.3.2.4.2 National Interests 76 2.3.2.4.3 Mandatory Laws 76 2.3.3 Doctrine and Its Formulation 78 2.3.4 Acceptance of Doctrine 79 2.4 Section C: Implicit Assumptions of Doctrine 81 2.4.1 High Level of Judicial Discretion 81 2.4.1.1 Judicial Power 82 2.4.1.2 (In)dependent Judiciary 86 2.4.2 Gap-Filling Law 91 2.4.3 High Level of Public Opinion 95 2.4.4 Legal Pluralism and Development of National Law 96 2.5 Section D: Genius of Doctrine 96 2.5.1 Preserving Legal Unity 97 2.5.2 Adaptable to Political Turbulence 97 2.5.3 Anticipating Legal Development 98 2.6 Conclusion 99 Chapter 3: The Practice of Law as Evident in Cases 100 3.1 Overview 100 3.2 Section A: Indonesian Civil Procedure in Brief 103 3.2.1 The Positive Law for Civil Procedure 103 3.2.2 Judicial Structure 104 3.2.3 A Three-Tier Court and Two-Stage Process 105 3.2.4 Extraordinary Method of Review 106 3.2.5 The Bench and Its Voice 106 3.2.6 Structure of Court Decision 108 vi 3.2.7 Exequatur for Foreign Arbitral Awards 111 3.3 Section B: Case Selection 112 3.3.1 Selected Case 112 3.3.2 Private International Law Aspects 113 3.4 Section C: Practice of Law 116 3.4.1 Lie Kwien Hien 116 3.4.1.1 Case Summary 116 3.4.1.2 Public Order Issue 117 3.4.1.3 Commentaries 118 3.4.1.4 Rationale of Chinese Marriage Law 119 3.4.1. Pluralism Facet of Public Order 121 3.4.2 ED & F Man (Sugar) 121 3.4.2.1 Case Summary 121 3.4.2.2 Public Order Issue 124 3.4.2.3 Commentaries 125 3.4.2.4 Public Order and Politics of Law 127 3.4.2.5 Admissible Cause and Politics of Law as Public Order 127 3.4.3 Karaha Bodas (2004) 128 3.4.3.1 Case Summary 128 3.4.3.2 Public Order Issue 131 3.4.3.3 Commentaries 134 3.4.3.4 Inviolability of Foreign Arbitration Process 138 3.4.4 Karaha Bodas (2008) 139 3.4.4.1 Case Summary 139 3.4.4.2 Public Order Issue 139 3.4.4.3 Commentaries 140 3.4.4.4 Affirmation: Inviolability of Foreign Arbitral Process 141 3.4.5 Astro Nusantara International 141 3.4.5.1 Case Summary 141 3.4.5.2 Public Order Issue 142 3.4.5.3 Commentaries 144 3.4.5.4 Right to Seek Legal Remedy as Public Order 145 3.4.6 Bungo Raya Nusantara 145 3.4.6.1 Case Summary 145 3.4.6.2 Public Order Issue 146 3.4.6.3 Commentaries 148 3.4.6.4 Affirmation: Inviolability of Foreign Arbitration Process 149 3.4.7 Lirik Petroleum (2010) 149 3.4.7.1 Case Summary 149 3.4.7.2 Public Order Issue 150 vii 3.4.7.3 Commentaries 153 3.4.7.4 Any Notion of Public Order is Secondary to Freedom of 154 Contract 3.4.8 Bank America National Trust 154 3.4.8.1 Case Summary 154 3.4.8.2 Public Order Issue 156 3.4.8.3 Commentaries 157 3.4.9 Lirik Petroleum (2011) 158 3.4.9.1 Case Summary 158 3.4.9.2 Public Order Issue 159 3.4.9.3 Commentaries 160 3.4.9.4 Affirmation: Inviolability of Foreign Arbitration Process 161 3.4.10 Direct Vision 161 3.4.10.1 Case Summary 161 3.4.10.2 Public Order Issue 162 3.4.10.3 Commentaries 163 3.4.10.4 Affirmation: Inviolability of Foreign Arbitration Process 163 3.5 Section D: Conclusion of Practice Law 163 3.6 Conclusion 166 Chapter 4: The Doctrine as Cohesion Device 168 4.1 Overview 168 4.2 Section A: Telling Facts about Indonesian Law 170 4.2.1 Fact 1: The Role of Courts 172 4.2.1.1 Based on Positive Law for Civil Procedure 172 4.2.1.2 Based on Politico-Legal Structure 175 4.2.2 Fact 2: Confusion in Legal Thinking 177 4.2.2.1 Unsettled Roles of Courts 177 4.2.2.2 Setting Priorities of Legal Principles 178 4.2.2.3 Upholding Hierarchy of Law 179 4.2.2.4 Reluctance to Judicial Review 180 4.2.2.5 Assessment of Politico-Legal Structure 181 4.2.3 Fact 3: Rule of Law v. Rule of Kebijaksanaan 182 4.2.3.1 Rule of Law, Rechtsstaat, and Negara Hukum 182 4.2.3.2 Kebijaksanaan and Rule of Kebijaksanaan 184 4.2.3.3 Rule of Law v Rule of Kebijaksanaan in Selected Cases 185 4.2.4 Fact 4: Politics of Law 186 4.2.4.1 Politics of Law: Policy for Legal Development 186 4.2.4.2 Courts and Politics of Law 188 4.2.5 Fact 5: Professorial Law 189 viii 4.2.5.1 Cited Scholars 190 4.2.5.2 Rationale for Citations 191 4.3 Section B: Why Indonesia Needs Cohesion Device 193 4.3.1 Incoherent Legal Unity 194 4.3.2 Inconsistent Practice 196 4.3.3 Legal Development 198 4.3.4 A Cohesion Device 199 4.4 Section C: How the Doctrine Serves as Cohesion Device 200 4.4.1 Doctrine Fulfills Cohesion Device Criteria 200 4.4.2 Selected Cases in Light of Doctrine 202 4.4.3 Effective Balance 203 4.4.4 Practical Challenge Remains 204 4.5 Conclusion 205 Chapter 5: Conclusion 207 Appendix 213 Bibliography 216 ix LIST OF MAPS Map 1 The Indonesian Archipelago 12 Map 2 The Territory of Indonesia Compared to the U.S.