Short answer. No. Under the Civil Code, any clause that gives one party the power to appoint more arbitrators than the other is void and of no effect. The clause cannot be enforced as written. Each side must have equal power in constituting the arbitral panel.
What the law says
Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than the other is void and of no effect.
Civil Code, Article 2045 — Void Arbitrator-Selection Clause. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Article 2045 of the Civil Code could not be more direct: Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than the other is void and of no effect. There is no exception. It does not matter whether the imbalance is slight — one party appointing two arbitrators while the other appoints one is just as void as a clause giving one party all appointments. The principle is equality: if arbitration is to be a fair alternative to litigation, neither party can stack the panel in their favor by contract.
Why this rule exists
Arbitration depends on the neutrality of the arbitrators. When one side can appoint a majority of the panel, the process is tilted before a single witness is heard or a document submitted. The party with the larger appointment power has a built-in structural advantage: its nominees may hold the deciding votes no matter how the neutral arbitrator rules. Article 2045 prevents this by treating equality of appointment power as a non-negotiable baseline. No matter how the rest of the arbitration clause is structured, this feature cannot survive.
What happens to the rest of the arbitration clause
The void portion is the clause giving unequal appointment power — not necessarily the entire arbitration agreement. Whether the rest of the arbitration arrangement can survive depends on the specific language and whether the parties would still have agreed to arbitrate under equal terms. If the arbitration clause can be read sensibly with the unequal appointment provision simply removed, there is an argument the parties are still bound to arbitrate under a corrected procedure. If the unequal appointment was so fundamental to the scheme that removing it makes the whole thing unworkable, the result may be that the arbitration agreement falls apart entirely.
What a valid arbitration appointment clause looks like
A valid clause ensures that each party has equal appointment power. The most common approach is to let each party appoint one arbitrator, with the two party-appointed arbitrators then jointly selecting a third neutral arbitrator. Another approach is to have all arbitrators appointed by a neutral third institution rather than by the parties themselves. Either structure satisfies Article 2045 because neither party can appoint more than the other. When drafting or reviewing an arbitration clause, this equality check is one of the first things to verify.