Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Nanda Narendra P.
OJK's Office. Photo by: RES.
The Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan- OJK) is currently weighing up the need to formulate a unified procedural law covering the existing six Alternative Dispute Resolution Agencies (Lembaga Alternative Penyelesaian Sengketa- LAPS) which are currently working within the financial-services sector. This is in line with the OJK’s roadmap, which is aiming to integrate these six LAPS under a single bar system.
Commenting on this issue, Anto Prabowo, Head of the OJK’s Consumer Protection Department, asserted that all LAPS will operate individually until the integration plan has been realized.
“For the time being, the LAPS will remain independent, although the planned roadmap will eventually merge them all together. We’re not anticipating any complications arising, because all six LAPS already have identical standard operating procedures (SOP). Moreover, the procedures and mechanisms for the integration have already been already regulated. Thus, it is only a matter of setting up a new integrated body,” asserted Mr. Prabowo when asked about the issue during a workshop event entitled Recent Developments in the OJK’s Primary Duties and Functions, which was held in Bogor on Saturday, 4 June 2016.
At present, the integration plan is still being deliberated by the relevant stakeholders, although the OJK has already established a working group for the purpose of accelerating the integration process. According to Mr. Prabowo, the OJK is hoping that the realization timeframe, which was originally set at a maximum of ten years under the roadmap, can be completed ahead of schedule.
Nonetheless, Mr. Prabowo has also asserted that the OJK cannot force or order all of the LAPS to announce definitive integration schedules. Ultimately, the OJK can only persuade and encourage the LAPS to integrate themselves for the purposes of improving efficiency and the effectiveness of ADR processing, while allowing them to determine the ideal integration timeframe themselves.
“We have already formulated a uniform SOP for existing LAPS, including procedural mechanisms for mediation, adjudication, and arbitration. Eventually, the integration process will link all of these areas together, as they typically relate to each other in any case,” asserted Mr. Prabowo.
Ricardo Simanjuntak from the Ricardo Simanjuntak & Partners law firm has previouslyemphasized the absolute need for a unified procedural law for all LAPS. In addition, elements such as a code of ethics, an ethics council, and a supervisory board are also considered to be vital.
Simanjuntak further stated that the current regulation on alternative dispute resolution agencies in the financial sector (POJK Nomor 1/POJK.07/2014) asserts the need for each LAPS to have its own regulations which relate to procedures, fees, and so on. This means that each of the six LAPS will have their own procedural laws. Simanjuntak believes that the absence of a unified procedural law could subsequently lead to legislative loopholes which will be exploited by certain corrupt parties for the purposes of personal gain.
“There is a strong need to formulate a standardized business process and code of conduct. After all, without a unified procedural law, there will be plenty of opportunities for corrupt behavior to flourish,” Mr. Simanjuntak warned.
Mr. Prabowo, however, expressed a slightly different opinion and stated his belief that there was no great urgency as regards the formulation of a unified procedural law, due to the fact that the LAPS themselves have yet to be integrated. Each LAPS already has its own procedural law, Mr. Prabowo noted, which are all technically speaking very similar to one another. Furthermore, the OJK previously reviewed the SOPs of each of the six LAPS prior to the incorporation of the LAPS into the OJK’s official list of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) agencies.
Continuing on this theme, Mr. Prabowo asserted that for the time being, the OJK had no intention of becoming deeply involved in the matter of procedural law for each of the LAPS, although possibly OJK regulation will come later, as the need arises.
“If we [the OJK] interfere too much, then I believe that we may end up exceeding the authority granted to us [as a supervisory body]. The OJK only has the authority to ensure that any disputing parties have access to a relevant settlement mechanism, specifically through the LAPS, and that these LAPS operate within a predetermined procedural framework. At present, we do not wish to delve too deeply into these matters because we have already evaluated each [LAPS] procedural law in the context of the Arbitration Law and the other relevant regulatory frameworks, and have found them to be them sufficient,” Mr. Prabowo concluded.
(hs/sp)
Commenting on this issue, Anto Prabowo, Head of the OJK’s Consumer Protection Department, asserted that all LAPS will operate individually until the integration plan has been realized.
“For the time being, the LAPS will remain independent, although the planned roadmap will eventually merge them all together. We’re not anticipating any complications arising, because all six LAPS already have identical standard operating procedures (SOP). Moreover, the procedures and mechanisms for the integration have already been already regulated. Thus, it is only a matter of setting up a new integrated body,” asserted Mr. Prabowo when asked about the issue during a workshop event entitled Recent Developments in the OJK’s Primary Duties and Functions, which was held in Bogor on Saturday, 4 June 2016.
At present, the integration plan is still being deliberated by the relevant stakeholders, although the OJK has already established a working group for the purpose of accelerating the integration process. According to Mr. Prabowo, the OJK is hoping that the realization timeframe, which was originally set at a maximum of ten years under the roadmap, can be completed ahead of schedule.
Nonetheless, Mr. Prabowo has also asserted that the OJK cannot force or order all of the LAPS to announce definitive integration schedules. Ultimately, the OJK can only persuade and encourage the LAPS to integrate themselves for the purposes of improving efficiency and the effectiveness of ADR processing, while allowing them to determine the ideal integration timeframe themselves.
“We have already formulated a uniform SOP for existing LAPS, including procedural mechanisms for mediation, adjudication, and arbitration. Eventually, the integration process will link all of these areas together, as they typically relate to each other in any case,” asserted Mr. Prabowo.
Ricardo Simanjuntak from the Ricardo Simanjuntak & Partners law firm has previouslyemphasized the absolute need for a unified procedural law for all LAPS. In addition, elements such as a code of ethics, an ethics council, and a supervisory board are also considered to be vital.
Simanjuntak further stated that the current regulation on alternative dispute resolution agencies in the financial sector (POJK Nomor 1/POJK.07/2014) asserts the need for each LAPS to have its own regulations which relate to procedures, fees, and so on. This means that each of the six LAPS will have their own procedural laws. Simanjuntak believes that the absence of a unified procedural law could subsequently lead to legislative loopholes which will be exploited by certain corrupt parties for the purposes of personal gain.
“There is a strong need to formulate a standardized business process and code of conduct. After all, without a unified procedural law, there will be plenty of opportunities for corrupt behavior to flourish,” Mr. Simanjuntak warned.
Mr. Prabowo, however, expressed a slightly different opinion and stated his belief that there was no great urgency as regards the formulation of a unified procedural law, due to the fact that the LAPS themselves have yet to be integrated. Each LAPS already has its own procedural law, Mr. Prabowo noted, which are all technically speaking very similar to one another. Furthermore, the OJK previously reviewed the SOPs of each of the six LAPS prior to the incorporation of the LAPS into the OJK’s official list of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) agencies.
Continuing on this theme, Mr. Prabowo asserted that for the time being, the OJK had no intention of becoming deeply involved in the matter of procedural law for each of the LAPS, although possibly OJK regulation will come later, as the need arises.
“If we [the OJK] interfere too much, then I believe that we may end up exceeding the authority granted to us [as a supervisory body]. The OJK only has the authority to ensure that any disputing parties have access to a relevant settlement mechanism, specifically through the LAPS, and that these LAPS operate within a predetermined procedural framework. At present, we do not wish to delve too deeply into these matters because we have already evaluated each [LAPS] procedural law in the context of the Arbitration Law and the other relevant regulatory frameworks, and have found them to be them sufficient,” Mr. Prabowo concluded.
(hs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Nanda Narendra P.
OJK's Office. Photo by: RES.
The Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan- OJK) is currently weighing up the need to formulate a unified procedural law covering the existing six Alternative Dispute Resolution Agencies (Lembaga Alternative Penyelesaian Sengketa- LAPS) which are currently working within the financial-services sector. This is in line with the OJK’s roadmap, which is aiming to integrate these six LAPS under a single bar system.
Commenting on this issue, Anto Prabowo, Head of the OJK’s Consumer Protection Department, asserted that all LAPS will operate individually until the integration plan has been realized.
“For the time being, the LAPS will remain independent, although the planned roadmap will eventually merge them all together. We’re not anticipating any complications arising, because all six LAPS already have identical standard operating procedures (SOP). Moreover, the procedures and mechanisms for the integration have already been already regulated. Thus, it is only a matter of setting up a new integrated body,” asserted Mr. Prabowo when asked about the issue during a workshop event entitled Recent Developments in the OJK’s Primary Duties and Functions, which was held in Bogor on Saturday, 4 June 2016.
At present, the integration plan is still being deliberated by the relevant stakeholders, although the OJK has already established a working group for the purpose of accelerating the integration process. According to Mr. Prabowo, the OJK is hoping that the realization timeframe, which was originally set at a maximum of ten years under the roadmap, can be completed ahead of schedule.
Nonetheless, Mr. Prabowo has also asserted that the OJK cannot force or order all of the LAPS to announce definitive integration schedules. Ultimately, the OJK can only persuade and encourage the LAPS to integrate themselves for the purposes of improving efficiency and the effectiveness of ADR processing, while allowing them to determine the ideal integration timeframe themselves.
“We have already formulated a uniform SOP for existing LAPS, including procedural mechanisms for mediation, adjudication, and arbitration. Eventually, the integration process will link all of these areas together, as they typically relate to each other in any case,” asserted Mr. Prabowo.
Ricardo Simanjuntak from the Ricardo Simanjuntak & Partners law firm has previouslyemphasized the absolute need for a unified procedural law for all LAPS. In addition, elements such as a code of ethics, an ethics council, and a supervisory board are also considered to be vital.
Simanjuntak further stated that the current regulation on alternative dispute resolution agencies in the financial sector (POJK Nomor 1/POJK.07/2014) asserts the need for each LAPS to have its own regulations which relate to procedures, fees, and so on. This means that each of the six LAPS will have their own procedural laws. Simanjuntak believes that the absence of a unified procedural law could subsequently lead to legislative loopholes which will be exploited by certain corrupt parties for the purposes of personal gain.
“There is a strong need to formulate a standardized business process and code of conduct. After all, without a unified procedural law, there will be plenty of opportunities for corrupt behavior to flourish,” Mr. Simanjuntak warned.
Mr. Prabowo, however, expressed a slightly different opinion and stated his belief that there was no great urgency as regards the formulation of a unified procedural law, due to the fact that the LAPS themselves have yet to be integrated. Each LAPS already has its own procedural law, Mr. Prabowo noted, which are all technically speaking very similar to one another. Furthermore, the OJK previously reviewed the SOPs of each of the six LAPS prior to the incorporation of the LAPS into the OJK’s official list of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) agencies.
Continuing on this theme, Mr. Prabowo asserted that for the time being, the OJK had no intention of becoming deeply involved in the matter of procedural law for each of the LAPS, although possibly OJK regulation will come later, as the need arises.
“If we [the OJK] interfere too much, then I believe that we may end up exceeding the authority granted to us [as a supervisory body]. The OJK only has the authority to ensure that any disputing parties have access to a relevant settlement mechanism, specifically through the LAPS, and that these LAPS operate within a predetermined procedural framework. At present, we do not wish to delve too deeply into these matters because we have already evaluated each [LAPS] procedural law in the context of the Arbitration Law and the other relevant regulatory frameworks, and have found them to be them sufficient,” Mr. Prabowo concluded.
(hs/sp)
Commenting on this issue, Anto Prabowo, Head of the OJK’s Consumer Protection Department, asserted that all LAPS will operate individually until the integration plan has been realized.
“For the time being, the LAPS will remain independent, although the planned roadmap will eventually merge them all together. We’re not anticipating any complications arising, because all six LAPS already have identical standard operating procedures (SOP). Moreover, the procedures and mechanisms for the integration have already been already regulated. Thus, it is only a matter of setting up a new integrated body,” asserted Mr. Prabowo when asked about the issue during a workshop event entitled Recent Developments in the OJK’s Primary Duties and Functions, which was held in Bogor on Saturday, 4 June 2016.
At present, the integration plan is still being deliberated by the relevant stakeholders, although the OJK has already established a working group for the purpose of accelerating the integration process. According to Mr. Prabowo, the OJK is hoping that the realization timeframe, which was originally set at a maximum of ten years under the roadmap, can be completed ahead of schedule.
Nonetheless, Mr. Prabowo has also asserted that the OJK cannot force or order all of the LAPS to announce definitive integration schedules. Ultimately, the OJK can only persuade and encourage the LAPS to integrate themselves for the purposes of improving efficiency and the effectiveness of ADR processing, while allowing them to determine the ideal integration timeframe themselves.
“We have already formulated a uniform SOP for existing LAPS, including procedural mechanisms for mediation, adjudication, and arbitration. Eventually, the integration process will link all of these areas together, as they typically relate to each other in any case,” asserted Mr. Prabowo.
Ricardo Simanjuntak from the Ricardo Simanjuntak & Partners law firm has previouslyemphasized the absolute need for a unified procedural law for all LAPS. In addition, elements such as a code of ethics, an ethics council, and a supervisory board are also considered to be vital.
Simanjuntak further stated that the current regulation on alternative dispute resolution agencies in the financial sector (POJK Nomor 1/POJK.07/2014) asserts the need for each LAPS to have its own regulations which relate to procedures, fees, and so on. This means that each of the six LAPS will have their own procedural laws. Simanjuntak believes that the absence of a unified procedural law could subsequently lead to legislative loopholes which will be exploited by certain corrupt parties for the purposes of personal gain.
“There is a strong need to formulate a standardized business process and code of conduct. After all, without a unified procedural law, there will be plenty of opportunities for corrupt behavior to flourish,” Mr. Simanjuntak warned.
Mr. Prabowo, however, expressed a slightly different opinion and stated his belief that there was no great urgency as regards the formulation of a unified procedural law, due to the fact that the LAPS themselves have yet to be integrated. Each LAPS already has its own procedural law, Mr. Prabowo noted, which are all technically speaking very similar to one another. Furthermore, the OJK previously reviewed the SOPs of each of the six LAPS prior to the incorporation of the LAPS into the OJK’s official list of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) agencies.
Continuing on this theme, Mr. Prabowo asserted that for the time being, the OJK had no intention of becoming deeply involved in the matter of procedural law for each of the LAPS, although possibly OJK regulation will come later, as the need arises.
“If we [the OJK] interfere too much, then I believe that we may end up exceeding the authority granted to us [as a supervisory body]. The OJK only has the authority to ensure that any disputing parties have access to a relevant settlement mechanism, specifically through the LAPS, and that these LAPS operate within a predetermined procedural framework. At present, we do not wish to delve too deeply into these matters because we have already evaluated each [LAPS] procedural law in the context of the Arbitration Law and the other relevant regulatory frameworks, and have found them to be them sufficient,” Mr. Prabowo concluded.
(hs/sp)