Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 26, 2022
Accepted
October 16, 2023
Published
February 25, 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 138 Download : 93

Main Article Content

Abstract

The professional management of State-Owned Enterprise Ltd. (Persero) will increase profits from business operations, which will in-turn increase state income. On the other hand, the less professional management of State-Owned Enterprises will lead to a negative impact due to economic losses. To prevent disputes between debtors and creditors when the Limited Liability State-Owned Enterprises (Persero) 1 suffers losses, the state has regulated a resolution through a bankruptcy mechanism to protect the rights of creditors. However, as a matter of fact, there are numerous inconsistent judicial interpretations regarding state capital participation in the State-Owned Enterprise Persero. In addition, disharmony of legal regulations has resulted in different views and understanding of judges regarding the legal position of State-Owned Enterprises in the implementation of bankruptcy and state finances. Based on these inconsistencies and disharmony, this study addresses three essential research questions: first, why is it necessary to apply legal protection to ensure that State-Owned Enterprises (Persero) fulfil its liabilities? Second, what will be the future legal protection for creditors to ensure that State-Owned Enterprises as debtors fulfil their liabilities? This normative legal research used statutory, conceptual, and case study approaches. This research concludes that legal certainty is needed to ensure creditor protection in the bankruptcy mechanism for State-Owned Enterprises. This legal certainty will only be achieved by changing the existing regulations through confirming the legal norm that the capital invested in the State-Owned Enterprise is the financial right of the State-Owned Enterprise Persero and is no longer included in state finances managed under the State Budget. This legal norm is necessary to avoid legal disharmony and inconsistency due to the diverse definitions of capital participation in State-Owned Enterprises (Persero) in bankruptcy decisions. This research initiates reformulation and clarity regarding the meaning of State capital participation in State-Owned Enterprises Persero.
Keywords: State-Owned Enterprises, Creditors, Bankruptcy


Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditur Untuk Menjamin Pemenuhan Kewajiban Badan Usaha Milik Negara (Persero) Dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia


Abstrak
Pengelolaan PT Badan Usaha Milik Negara (Persero) yang profesional akan meningkatkan keuntungan operasional usaha yang pada gilirannya akan meningkatkan pendapatan negara. Di sisi lain, pengelolaan Badan Usaha Milik Negara yang kurang profesional akan menimbulkan dampak negatif berupa kerugian ekonomi. Untuk mencegah terjadinya perselisihan antara debitur dan kreditur apabila Badan Usaha Milik Negara (Persero) 1 mengalami kerugian, negara telah mengatur penyelesaian melalui mekanisme kepailitan untuk melindungi hak-hak kreditur. Namun pada kenyataannya, terdapat banyak penafsiran hukum yang tidak konsisten mengenai penyertaan modal negara pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara Persero. Selain itu, ketidakharmonisan peraturan perundang-undangan mengakibatkan adanya perbedaan pandangan dan pemahaman hakim mengenai kedudukan hukum Badan Usaha Milik Negara dalam pelaksanaan kepailitan dan keuangan negara. Berdasarkan inkonsistensi dan disharmoni tersebut, penelitian ini menjawab tiga pertanyaan penting penelitian: pertama, mengapa perlu diterapkan perlindungan hukum untuk menjamin Badan Usaha Milik Negara (Persero) memenuhi kewajibannya? Kedua, bagaimana perlindungan hukum ke depan bagi kreditur untuk memastikan BUMN sebagai debitur memenuhi kewajibannya? Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan studi kasus. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa kepastian hukum diperlukan untuk menjamin perlindungan kreditur dalam mekanisme kepailitan Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Kepastian hukum tersebut hanya dapat dicapai dengan mengubah peraturan yang ada melalui penegasan norma hukum bahwa modal yang ditanamkan pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara merupakan hak keuangan Badan Usaha Milik Negara Persero dan tidak lagi termasuk dalam keuangan negara yang dikelola di bawah naungan Negara. Anggaran. Norma hukum ini diperlukan untuk menghindari disharmoni dan inkonsistensi hukum akibat beragamnya definisi penyertaan modal pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara (Persero) dalam putusan pailit. Penelitian ini mengawali reformulasi dan kejelasan mengenai makna penyertaan modal negara pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara Persero.
Kata Kunci: Badan Usaha Milik Negara, Kreditur, Kepailitan

Keywords

Bankruptcy Creditors State-Owned Enterprises

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Heru Pramono

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

How to Cite
Heru Pramono. (2024). Legal Protection For Creditors To Ensure The Fulfillment Of State-Owned Enterprises (Persero)’S Liabilities In The Indonesian Legal System. Prophetic Law Review, 5(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.20885/PLR.vol5.iss2.art1
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Law No.17/2003 on State Finances

  2. Law No.19/2003 on State’s Own Enterprises

  3. Law No.1/2004 on State Treasury

  4. Law No.37/2004 on Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (Indonesian Bankruptcy Law)

  5. Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Companies (Indonesian Company Law)

  6. Supreme Court Letter Number: WKMA/Yud/20/VIII/2006.

  7. Letter from the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia Number S-324/MK.01/2006 dated 26 July 2006.

  8. Decree of the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises No. S- 298/S.MBU/2007.

  9. PT Kertas Leces bankruptcy case; Decision Number 5/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2014/PN Niaga Sby. Jo Decision No.1/Pdt.Sus. Cancellation of Peace/2018/PN Niaga Sby. Jo Decision Number 43 PK/ Pdt.Sus Bankruptcy/2019

  10. Case of implementation of the achievements of the State-Owned Enterprise PT Pelayaran Nasional Indonesia; Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 168/Pdt.G/2008/PN.Jkt.Pst Jo. DKI High Court Decision Number 537/PDT/2009/PT.DKI.JKT Jo. Supreme Court Decision Number 76 K/pdt/2011 Jo. Number 496 PK/pdt/2013.

  11. Commercial Court Decision at the Central Jakarta District Court Number 41/Pailit/2007/PN.Niaga/PT Jo. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 075 K/Pdt.Sus/2007.

  12. PT Istaka Karya Decision Case in the Commercial Court Decision at the Central Jakarta District Court Number 73/PAILIT/2010/PN.JKT.PST, jo Supreme Court Decision No. 124K/Pdt.Sus/2011.

  13. The case of the decision of PT INTERCHEM PLASAGRO JAYA and PT AKR CORPORINDO, Tbk, against PT IGLAS (Persero) in the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 075 K/Pdt.Sus/2007 Jo. Supreme Court Judicial Review Decision (PK) Number: 111 PK/Pdt.Sus/2009.

  14. Atmadja, Arifin P Soeria. Pola Pikir Hukum (Legal Mindscapes) Definisi Keuangan Negara Yang Membangun Praktik Bisnis Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) Yang Mengakar (Deep Rooted Bussines Practice). Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia Press, 2011.

  15. Bastian, Rahmad. Prinsip Hukum Kepailitan Lintas Yurisdiksi, 2005.

  16. Diantha, I Made Pasek. Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum / I Made Pasek Diantha. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group, 2016.

  17. Ginting, Elyta Ras. Hukum Kepailitan. 1st ed. Rawamangun, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2018.

  18. Hartini, Rahayu. BUMN Persero: Konsep Keuangan Negara Dan Hukum Kepailitan Di Indonesia. Malang, Jatim: Setara Press, 2017.

  19. Ilmar, Aminuddin. Hak Menguasai Negara Dalam Privatisasi BUMN. 1st ed. Rawamangun, Jakarta, Indonesia: Kencana, 2012.

  20. Khairandy, Ridwan. Pokok-Pokok Hukum Dagang Indonesia. 1st ed. Yogyakarta: FH UII Press, 2013.

  21. Muljadi, Kartini. Kepailitan Dan Penyelesaian Utang Piutang. Alumni, 2001.

  22. Munir, Fuady. Hukum Pailit Dalam Teori Dan Praktek. 5th ed. Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2014.

  23. Nurdin, Andriani. Kepailitan BUMN persero berdasarkan asas kepastian hukum. Bandung: ALUMNI, 2012.

  24. Pangestu, Muhammad Teguh. Badan Usaha Milik Negara dan Status Hukum Kekayaan Negara: Berdasarkan UU BUMN. Makassar: CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn), n.d.

  25. Prasetya, Rudhi. Perseroan Terbatas: Teori Dan Praktik. Cet. 1. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2016.

  26. Prayoga, Andhika. Solusi Hukum Ketika Bisnis Terancam Pailit (Bangkrut). 1st ed. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Yustisia, 2014.

  27. Sunarmi. Hukum Kepailitan Edisi 2. 2nd ed. Jakarta: Sofmedia, 2010.

  28. Wijaya, Andika. Penanganan Perkara Kepailitan Dan Perkara Penundaan Pembayaran Secara Praxis. 1st ed. Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2017.

  29. Aditya, Tatu. “Reforming Criminal Impacts in The Law of State Finance: Legal Certainty for State-Ownerd Enterprise.” Indonesia Law Journal 15, no. 2 (2022).

  30. Afriyadi, Hadian. “Rekonstruksi Yuridis Kekayaan Negara Yang Dipisahkan Pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara.” Al-Adl : Jurnal Hukum 9, no. 1 (July 3, 2017): 230. https://doi.org/10.31602/al-adl.v9i1.800.

  31. Akram, Muhammad, Sabir Alwy, and Andi Tenri Famauri. “Pertimbangan Hakim Terhadap Pernyataan Kepailitan Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN)” 6, no. 4 (2022).

  32. Anisah, Siti. “Perlindungan Terhadap Kepentingan Kreditor Melalui Actio Pauliana.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 16, no. 2 (2009): 205. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol16.iss2.art3.

  33. Arinanto, Satya, and Dian Parluhutan. “Holding of the Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises and Analysis of the Judicial Review Over the Government Regulation Number 47/2017 Juncto Law Number 19 Year 2003 on the BUMN.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Law and Governance (ICLAVE 2019). Solo, Central Java, Indonesia: Atlantis Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200321.034.

  34. Benuf, Kornelius, and Muhamad Azhar. “Metodologi Penelitian Hukum sebagai Instrumen Mengurai Permasalahan Hukum Kontemporer.” Gema Keadilan 7, no. 1 (April 1, 2020): 20–33. https://doi.org/10.14710/gk.2020.7504.

  35. Edgar Tanaya, Putu, and Kadek Agus Sudiarawan. “Akibat Hukum Kepailitan Badan Usaha Milik Negara Pasca Berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 Tentang Keuangan Negara.” Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH) 3, no. 1 (February 7, 2017): 117. https://doi.org/10.23887/jkh.v3i1.9247.

  36. Heriyanto, Dodik Setiawan Nur. “Legal Challenges to Improve and Reform the Privatized Water Services in Indonesia.” Public Goods and Governance 1, no. 1 (2016).

  37. ———. “Strengthening Indonesian Judges’ Understanding of the Refusal and Annulment Grounds of Foreign Arbitral Awards.” Acta Juridica Hungarica 56, no. 2–3 (September 2015): 167–76. https://doi.org/10.1556/026.2015.56.2-3.6.

  38. Hidayatulloh, and Éva Erdős. “Legal Risk of State-Owned Enterprises’ Debt.” European Journal of Law and Political Science 3, no. 1 (January 20, 2024): 10–16. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejpolitics.2024.3.1.120.

  39. Milhaupt, Curtis J., and Mariana Pargendler. “Governance Challenges of Listed State-Owned Enterprises Around the World: National Experiences and a Framework for Reform.” Cornell International Law Journal 50, no. 3 (2017): 474–542. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1907&context=cilj.

  40. Mulyadi, Kartini. “Kreditor Preferens Dan Kreditor Separatis Dalam Kepailitan.” In Undang-Undang Kepailitan Dan Perkembangannya (Pengkajian Hukum, 164, 2005.

  41. Nachrawi, Gunawan. “Implementation of Management of State-Owned Enterprises for People’s Welfare.” International Journal of Science and Society 4, no. 4 (December 8, 2022): 522–35. https://doi.org/10.54783/ijsoc.v4i4.600.

  42. Siswanto, Arie, and Marihot Janpieter Hutajulu. “Government-Owned Enterprises (GOEs) in Indonesia’s Competition Law and Practice.” Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 8, no. 1 (April 27, 2019): 93. https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v0ixx.21740.

  43. Yasin, Muhammad, and Harsanto Nursadi. “Miracle 14: Transparency in Indonesia’s State-Owned Enterprises.” BISNIS & BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Dan Organisasi 28, no. 3 (October 1, 2021). https://doi.org/10.20476/jbb.v28i3.1303.

  44. Susanto. “Harmonisasi Hukum Makna Keuangan Negara Dan Kekayaan Negara Yang Dipisahkan Pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara (Badan Usaha Milik Negara) Persero,” 215. Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pamulang, 2017.