In this paper, the author analyzes the restrictions imposed on party autonomy to set the arbitration procedure, derived from Constitutional Law inter alia. He does so, through a comparative exercise that deals with the case of amigable composición as an example of ADR whose contractual nature favors party autonomy. In order to demonstrate that the constituent and the Colombian legislator could have further favor party autonomy in arbitration, the author analyses the similarities between these two mechanisms. Thus, through an investigation on the roots, regulation and jurisprudential evolution of amigable composición in Colombia and in comparative law, he identifies why there are so many differences in the practice of these proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]