REJECTION OF RATIFICATION OF THE PKPU PEACE AGREEMENT DUE TO THE BANKRUPTCY LAW AND DELAY OF DEBT PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS
Abstract
Debtors can make loans to creditors in the form of credit from banks, from companies other than banks or even personal loans. After the loan agreement is in place, the debtor must immediately settle his debts and receivables. Commercial Court Decision Number 2/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2023/PN. Niaga Sby, the parties, are PT Jatim Bromo Steel, a construction company as the debtor, with PT Merak Jaya Beton and PT International Paint Indonesia as creditors. The author aims to explain the legal considerations of the Niaga Sby District Court which rejected the ratification of the peace agreement and the legal consequences of canceling the peace agreement for the PKPU Petitioner and Respondent. On this occasion, the author used a juridical-normative research method with analytical descriptive research specifications. The data collection technique in research is literature study through primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. The analysis method is qualitative juridical so that the results obtained are descriptive data. Based on the research results, it is clear that the legal considerations for refusing to ratify the peace agreement are: The debtor submits a request for a peace agreement plan which is then agreed to by the creditors. The aim of the peace agreement plan is to provide protection to the Debtor so that his business can continue and the Creditor's rights are guaranteed. The Commercial Court considers the peace plan submitted by the Debtor based on Article 285 UUKPKPU. The legal consequence of canceling the ratification of the peace agreement is that the Parties must comply with the contents of the peace agreement. However, the Commercial Court considered that there were absolute matters which were not agreed upon between the parties. What is meant is the management fee compensation. Therefore, the Panel of Judges at the Commercial Court could not ratify the settlement.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Buku
Astrie Sekarlaranti Letari, Tinjauan Terhadap Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004.
Munir Fuady, Hukum Tentang Pembiayaan (Teori dan Praktik), Bandung: Citra Adya Bakti, 1995.
Pande Radja Silalahi, Dampak Perpu Kepailitan Terhadap Dunia Usaha Dalam Penyelesaian Utang Piutang Melalui Pailit atau Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, Bandung: Alumni, 2003.
Soerjono Soekanto dan Sri Mamuji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Singkat, Depok: Rajawali Pers, 2018.
Sudarsono, Pengantar Ilmu Hukum, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 1998.
Sutan Remy Sjahdenni, Hukum Kepailitan Memahami Undang-Undang No. 39 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan, Jakarta: PT Pustaka Utana Grafoti, 2012.
Jurnal
Eva Puspita Sari dan Evi Kongres, “Kepastian Hukum Terhadap Proses PKPU Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 23/PUU-XIX/2021”, Jurnal Hukum Magnun Opus, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023.
F. Yudhi Priyo Amboro, “Restrukturisasi Utang Terhadap Perusahaan Go Public Dalam Kepailitan dan PKPU”, Masalah-masalah Hukum, Jilid 49, No. 1. 2020.
Imam Ghazali Anwar, dkk, “Perjanjian Perdamaian Sebagai Langkah Restrukturisasi Hutang Dalam PKPU”, Jurnal of Comprehensive Science, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2023.
Nur Iftah Isnantia,” Legal Reasoning Hakim Dalam Pengambilan Putusan Perkara di Pengadilan”, Islamidina Jurnal Pemikiran Islam, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2017.
Rahmadiyanti R.A, “Akibat Hukum Penolakan Rencana Perdamaian Debitor Oleh Kreditor Dalam Proses Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang”, Notarius, Vol. 08, No. 2, 2015.
Rindy Ayu Rahmadiyanti, “Akibat Hukum Penolakan Rencana Perdamaian Debitor Oleh Kreditor Dalam Proses Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang”, Notarius, Edisi 08, No. 2, 2015.
Tommy Leonard dan Yolanda C. Irianda Panjaitan, “Tinjauan Yuridis Perjanjian Perdamaian Pada Proses Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang”, IMBLAM Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2023.
Sumber Lainnya
Letizia Tobing, “Perbedaan Antara Kepailitan dengan PKPU”, diakses dari https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/a/hukum-dagang-lt50c3529a6061f/.
Lestari A.S, Skripsi: “Tinjauan Terhadap Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Berdasarkan Undang Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Dengan Penundaan Kewajiban Utang Akibat Reorganisasi Perusahaan Berdasarkan Chapter 11 US Bankruptcy Code (Studi Komparasi).
Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata
Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Pajak.
Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2006 Tentang Peradilan Umum.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/sklj.v9i1.51803
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 0 timesPDF - 0 times
Copyright (c) 2026 Syiah Kuala Law Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
