Analisis Yuridis Peran Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Dalam Kepailitan (Studi Kasus : PT. Asuransi Jiwa Kresna Putusan Pk No. 3 Pk/Pdt.Sus-Pailit 2022)

Mamanua, Rudy Efendy (2022) Analisis Yuridis Peran Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Dalam Kepailitan (Studi Kasus : PT. Asuransi Jiwa Kresna Putusan Pk No. 3 Pk/Pdt.Sus-Pailit 2022). S1 thesis, Universitas Kristen Indonesia.

	Text (Hal_Judul_Abstrak_Daftar_Isi) HalJudulAbstrakDaftarIsi.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (8MB)
	Text (BAB_I) BABI.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (10MB)
	Text (BAB_II) BABII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (24MB)
	Text (BAB_III) BABIII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (8MB)
	Text (BAB_IV) BABIV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (15MB)
	Text (BAB_V) BABV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (2MB)
	Text (Daftar_Pustaka) DaftarPustaka.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (697kB)
	Text (Lampiran) Lampiran.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (3MB)

Abstract

Mendengar kata gagal bayar dan pailit merupakan momok yang menakutkan bagi nasib karyawan-karyawan yang bekerja di perusahaan Asuransi maupun pelaku usaha. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) yang memiliki kedudukan hukum (legal standing) untuk membuat pernyataan pailit dinilai lamban dan tebang pilih khususnya terkait perkara pailit perusahaan Asuransi Jiwa Kresna (AJK). Nasabah AJK merasa nyata-nyata dirugikan (dengan total kerugian sekitar 6.4 Triliun) dengan skema penawaran pembayaran yang diajukan AJK karena nasabah sampai harus menunggu 5 (lima) tahun untuk bisa terbayarkan semua kewajibannya. Penulis meneliti apa sebenarnya peran OJK dalam Kepailitan Perasuransian di Indonesia dan apa akibat hukum kepailitan bagi perusahaan asuransi serta bagaimana pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan MA Nomor 647 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2021 tanggal 8 Juni 2021? Penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kasus didasarkan pada bahan hukum primer maupun bahan hukum sekunder. Untuk melengkapi bahan hukum tersebut penulis juga melakukan wawancara langsung dengan Dr. Benny Wullur S.H., M.H.Kes, sebagai perwakilan dari nasabah konkuren sebagai pemohon dalam Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) di kantor hukumnya. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa (1) OJK dinilai lamban merespon permintaan nasabah yang dirugikan pihak asuransi dalam 30 (tiga puluh hari) sehingga OJK dianggap lalai dalam memberikan kejelasan haknya untuk membuat pernyataan pailit perusahaan asuransi Jiwa Kresna (AJK). Sebagai regulator yang memiliki fungsi pengawasan dan perlindungan, OJK memang harus mempertimbangkan banyak pemangku kepentingan (stakeholders) seperti pencari keadilan (nasabah/pihak yang dirugikan), kepentingan pelaku usaha asuransi, nasib karyawan perusahaan asuransi (labour) yang akan dipailitkan dan konsumen/nasabah lain pada umumnya yang sudah lama menabung/berinvestasi di AJK. OJK sudah bagus dengan menghukum AJK dengan pembatasan kegiatan usaha (PKU). (2) Sesuai putusan jelas tertera bahwa karena ada kekosongan hukum (undang-undang kurang jelas dan OJK tidak memberikan respon resmi dan tertulis), maka majelis hakim Pengadilan Niaga di Jakarta Pusat setuju/sependapat dengan pendapat 2 (dua) ahli serta permohonan Pak Benny Wullur (kuasa dari nasabah konkuren) dan akhirnya mengesahkan putusan PKPU/homologasi. Permintaan kasasi oleh nasabah lain yang tidak setuju PKPU dan meminta pailit dinilai obscuur libel. Selanjutnya, walaupun putusan Kasasi dan PK dinilai kontroversial karena bertabrakan dengan Undang-undang yang lain namun Mahkamah Agung (MA) sudah memperbaiki (rectify) kesalahan (cacat hukum) yang dibuat oleh Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga khususnya terkait isu legal standing yang membuat preseden kasus AJK ini untuk dunia asuransi kedepannya. MA mengembalikan mandat ke OJK bahwa hanya OJK yang boleh mengajukan permohonan PKPU dan kepailitan terhadap perusahaan asuransi. Sebagai saran, pertama sebaiknya Mahkamah Agung menerbitkan peraturan internal/surat edaran agar Panitera Pengadilan Niaga harus secara tegas menolak permohonan PKPU/kepailitan bila subyek hukum yang digugat adalah perusahaan asuransi atau reasuransi. Kedua, OJK jangan bersikap lamban dan tidak professional lagi dalam memberikan respon sesuai batas waktu (time period) kewenangannya yakni dalam waktu 30 hari apakah menolak atau menerima permohonan PKPU atau Kepailitan agar ada kepastian hukum bagi para pencari keadilan atau nasabah/konsumen di dunia asuransi. Kata Kunci : Kepailitan, PKPU, OJK, Perasuransian, PT. Asuransi Jiwa Kresna./ Hearing the words default and bankruptcy is a frightening specter for the fate of employees who work in insurance companies and business actors. The Financial Services Authority (OJK) which has legal standing to make a bankruptcy statement is considered slow and selective, especially regarding the bankruptcy case of the Kresna Life Insurance company (AJK). AJK customers feel that they have been seriously disadvantaged (with a total loss of around 6.4 trillion) with the payment offer scheme proposed by AJK because customers have to wait 5 (five) years to be able to pay all their obligations. The author examines what exactly is the role of OJK in Insurance Bankruptcy in Indonesia and what are the legal consequences of bankruptcy for insurance companies and what are the judges' considerations in the Supreme Court decision Number 647 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2021 dated June 8, 2021? This research is a normative research with a statutory, conceptual, and case approach based on primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. To complete the legal material, the author also conducted direct interviews with Dr. Benny Wullur S.H., M.H.Kes, as a representative of a concurrent customer as an applicant in the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) at his law office. The results of this study indicate that (1) OJK is considered slow in responding to requests from customers who are harmed by the insurance company within 30 (thirty days) so that OJK is considered negligent in providing clarity on its right to make a bankruptcy statement for the Kresna Life insurance company (AJK). As a regulator that has a supervisory and protection function, OJK must consider many stakeholders, such as justice seekers (customers/aggrieved parties), the interests of insurance business actors, the fate of insurance company employees. (labor) who will be bankrupt and other consumers/customers in general who have been saving/investing in AJK for a long time. OJK has done well by punishing AJK with restrictions on business activities (PKU). (2) In accordance with the decision, it is clearly stated that because there is a legal vacuum (the law is not clear and the OJK does not provide an official and written response), the panel of judges at the Commercial Court in Central Jakarta agrees with the opinion of 2 (two) experts and the request of Mr. Benny Wullur (power of the concurrent customer) and finally ratified the PKPU/homologation decision. A request for cassation by another customer who disagrees with PKPU and asks for bankruptcy is considered obscure libel. Furthermore, although the Cassation and PK decisions are considered controversial because they collide with other laws, the Supreme Court (MA) has rectified the errors (legal defects) made by the Commercial Court Judges, especially regarding the issue of legal standing that set a precedent in the AJK case. This is for the insurance world in the future. The Supreme Court returned the mandate to the OJK that only OJK could apply for PKPU and bankruptcy against insurance companies. As a suggestion, first, the Supreme Court should issue an internal regulation/circular letter so that the Registrar of the Commercial Court must expressly reject the PKPU/bankruptcy application if the legal subject being sued is an insurance or reinsurance company. Second, OJK should not be slow and unprofessional in responding according to the time period of its authority, which is within 30 days whether to reject or accept the application for PKPU or Bankruptcy so that there is legal certainty for justice seekers or customers/consumers in the insurance industry.

Actions (login required)

View Item