Persoalan yang Timbul atas Putusan Pailit Debitor Perseorangan Akibat Aturan Pembuktian Sederhana Yang Tidak Limitatif Dalam Hukum Kepailitan (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor : 55/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst)

Irawan, Erwin (2022) Persoalan yang Timbul atas Putusan Pailit Debitor Perseorangan Akibat Aturan Pembuktian Sederhana Yang Tidak Limitatif Dalam Hukum Kepailitan (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor : 55/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst). S2 thesis, Universitas Kristen indonesia.

	Text (Hal_Judul_Daftar_Isi_Abstrak) HalJudulDaftarIsiAbastrak.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (3MB)
	Text (BAB_I) BAB I.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (332kB)
	Text (BAB_II) BABII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (291kB)
	Text (BAB_III) BABIII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (418kB)
	Text (BAB_IV) BABIV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (423kB)
	Text (BAB_V) BABV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (103kB)
	Text (Daftar_Pustaka) DaftarPustaka.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (163kB)

Abstract

Kepailitan adalah sita umum atas semua kekayaan Debitor pailit yang pengurusan dan pemberesannya dilakukan oleh Kurator di bawah pengawasan Hakim Pengawas. Kepailitan terjadi akibat adanya hubungan hukum antara debitor (pihak yang memperoleh pinjaman/utang) dan kreditor (pihak yang memberikan pinjaman/utang) di mana debitor sudah tidak mampu lagi membayar utang-utangnya atau tidak membayar lunas utang-utangnya kepada dua atau lebih kreditor yang salah satu utangnya sudah jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih. Dinyatakan pailit dengan putusan Pengadilan atas permohonannya sendiri maupun atas permohonan dua kreditor atau lebih sehingga harta kekayaannya perlu dilakukan sita umum untuk dapat dibagi secara adil kepada para kreditornya. Perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana pengaturan pembuktian sederhana dalam UUK PKPU dan apa saja persoalan yang timbul dalam perkara kepailitan akibat batasan pembuktian sederhana yang tidak limitatif dalam UUK PKPU (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor : 55/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst). Metode pendekatan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif. Pengumpulan data berdasarkan studi kepustakaan dan studi putusan, sedangkan pengolahan data dilakukan dengan metode editing, klasifikasi data dan sistematisasi data, selanjutnya dilakukan analisis dengan analisis deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian pertama adalah pengaturan pembuktian sederhana dalam UUK PKPU hanya diatur dalam Pasal 8 ayat (4) bahwa permohonan dapat dibuktikan secara sederhana sebagaimana yang dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) telah terpenuhi, syarat kepailitan yang dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) yang menyatakan adanya dua atau lebih kreditor dan tidak membayar utang yang telah jatuh waktu dan dapat ditagih, namun dalam UUK PKPU tidak memberikan penjelasan secara rinci mengenai bagaimana pembuktikan sederhana dilakukan sehingga pelaksanaan dan penafsiran dilakukan sepenuhnya oleh majelis hakim yang memeriksa dan memutus perkara kepailitan yang bersangkutan. Hasil penelitian kedua adalah didapatkan fakta bahwa Aset debitor Esih Sukaesih lebih besar dibandingkan dengan jumlah keseluruhan utang-utangnya, namun fakta ini baru terungkap setelah adanya putusan pailit dijatuhkan oleh Majelis Hakim dan terdapat sita eksekusi yang telah dilakukan oleh salah satu kreditor terhadap aset debitor pailit yang telah ditetapkan oleh pengadilan Negeri Tangerang namun setelah dijatuhkan putusan pailit maka sita eksekusi yang telah di tetapkan menjadi hapus dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum. Kesimpulan pertama yaitu pengaturan pembuktian sederhana dalam UUK PKPU hanya diatur dalam Pasal 8 Ayat (4) dan tidak ada pengaturan mengenai syarat limitatif pembuktian sederhana untuk dapat dikabulkannya suatu pernyataan pailit, Kesimpulan kedua yaitu adanya kemudahan dalam mengabulkan permohonan pailit dikarenakan pemohon hanya membuktikan debitor memiliki 2 (dua) atau lebih kreditor dan sedikitnya utang yang jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih, tanpa mempertimbangkan keadaan debitor solven atau tidak sebelumnya dan setelah dilakukan analisis terdapat persoalan yang muncul setelah adanya putusan pailit Nomor 55/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, yaitu tidak adanya kepastian hukum terhadap salah satu kreditor terkait dengan aset milik Esih Sukaesih yang telah terdapat penetapan eksekusi oleh Pengadilan Negeri Tangerang dan terdapat fakta bahwa harta debitor pailit lebih besar dibandingkan dengan utang-utangnya yang seharusnya dalam perkara a quo menjadi pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan suatu putusan pailit./ Bankruptcy is the general confiscation of all assets of the bankrupt Debtor whose management and settlement is carried out by the Curator under the supervision of the Supervisory Judge. Bankruptcy occurs as a result of a legal relationship between the debtor (the party who gets the loan/debt) and creditors (the party providing the loan/debt) where the debtor is no longer able to pay his debts or does not pay off his debts to two or more creditors whose debts are due and collectible. Is declared bankrupt by a court decision at his own request or at the request of two or more creditors so that his assets need to be confiscated by general so that it can be divided fairly among his creditors. The problem in this research is How to arrange simple evidence in Constitution number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment and what are the problems that arise in bankruptcy cases due to the limitations of simple evidence that are not limited in Constitution number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment (Case Study Of Decision Number : 55/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst). The method of juridical normative legal research approaches. Data collection is based on literature study and decision study, while data processing is done by editing methods, classification of data and systematization of data, then analyzed with qualitative descriptive analysis. The results of the first study are the arrangement of simple evidence in the Constitution number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment is only regulated in Article 8 paragraph (4) that the application can be proven simply as referred to in Article 2 paragraph (1) has been fulfilled, Bankruptcy conditions as referred to in Article 2 paragraph (1) which state that there are two or more creditors and do not pay debts that have matured and can be collected. But in Constitution number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment does not provide a detailed explanation of how simple evidence is carried out so that the implementation and interpretation is carried out entirely by the panel of judges who examine and decide on the bankruptcy case concerned, The results of the second study are In general, the first problem that arises from the existence of simple evidence in a Bankruptcy case is the ease of granting a bankruptcy application because the applicant only proves that the debtor has 2 (two) or more creditors and at least debts that are due and can be collected without considering the situation of the company/individual being solvent or not because there are no clear and definite arrangements provided that the applicant can prove facts or circumstances that are proven to be simple, The first conclusion is simple proof setting in Constitution number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment it is only regulated in Article 8 Paragraph (4) and there is no regulation regarding the limitative conditions of simple evidence for a declaration of bankruptcy to be granted, The results of the second study are the fact is that the assets of the debtor Esih Sukaesih are greater than the total amount of debts However, this fact was only revealed after a bankruptcy decision was handed down by the Panel of Judges and there is an execution confiscation that has been carried out by one of the creditors against the assets of the bankrupt debtor which has been determined by the Tangerang District Court, However, after the bankruptcy decision is imposed, the confiscation of execution that has been determined is null and has no legal force. The first conclusion is simple evidentiary arrangements in the Constitution number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment are only regulated in Article 8 Paragraph (4) and there is no regulation regarding the limitative conditions of simple evidence for the granting of a bankruptcy statement, the second conclusion is there is convenience in granting a bankruptcy application because the applicant only proves the debtor has 2 (two) or more creditors and at least debts that are due and collectible, without considering the situation of the debtor being solvent or not before and after the analysis, there were problems that arose after the bankruptcy decision Number 55/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, namely the absence of legal certainty for one of the creditors related to assets owned by Esih Sukaesih for which there has been a determination of execution by the Tangerang District Court and there is a fact that the assets of the bankrupt debtor are greater than their debts which should in the a quo case be considered by the judge in making a bankruptcy decision.

Actions (login required)

View Item