The language law is not very clear in this regard, since it simply provides that the Indonesian and other language and/or English versions are considered original. However, the parties to an agreement may accept the dominant language if the differences in translation between the foreign language and the Indonesian language version are different. For example, the parties may agree that the English version is a priority and that, therefore, the agreement will be interpreted according to the English version. However, the PR 63 edition should review this approach. With the passage of PR 63, it is clear that for future transactions, a bilingual format (or another format that the parties choose as long as there is a corresponding version in Indonesian language) is required. The regulation argues that the non-Indonesian version is equivalent or translated to ensure a common understanding between the contracting parties. Recommended approach. Following the introduction of PR 63, we recommend reducing the risk of the document being prepared and signed in bilingual format as soon as the Indonesian version is ready to be signed, and the parties must have expressly stated (i) that the bilingual document reflects their consent effectively on the date the foreign language is signed and (ii) that both versions are equivalent. The foreign language version of this bilingual document is identical to the first signed foreign language version.
PR 63 also states that formal communications would include consultations, interest groups, negotiations, meetings, discussions and correspondence, among others. This would mean that formal meetings, negotiations and correspondence would require the use of the Indonesian language, and if a foreign party is involved, an interpreter can be used. The regulation does not say whether a bilingual form can still be prepared if the parties are all Indonesian entities. We believe that, in this case, the parties may have a non-Indonesian language translation or a bilingual form agreement; However, the dominant language should be Indonesian. For the second scenario, in accordance with Article 26, paragraph 3, of PR 63, the foreign language and/or English version is used only as an equivalence or translation of the Indonesian version, in order to reconcile the understanding of agreements and agreements to which the foreign parties are parties.