Penerapan Asas Kelangsungan Usaha Pasca Pembatalan Homologasi Perjanjian Perdamaian dalam PKPU Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62383/demokrasi.v2i4.1282Keywords:
Bankruptcy, Going Concern Principle, Homologation, Legal Certainty, UUK-PKPUAbstract
value of the bankruptcy estate (boedel pailit) through the going concern principle. Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU) allows curators to continue the debtor’s business, particularly under Article 179 paragraph (1). However, the absence of clear normative parameters creates legal uncertainty and inconsistent practices. This study analyzes the application of the going concern principle in the settlement of bankruptcy estates following the annulment of homologated composition agreements and examines the urgency of technical implementing regulations. Using a normative juridical method supported by statutory analysis, court decisions, legal doctrines, and interviews, the research focuses on the cases of PT Sri Rejeki Isman Tbk. (Sritex) and PT Texmaco Perkasa Engineering Tbk. The findings reveal that going concern implementation depends not only on legal provisions but also on non-legal factors, such as transparency, asset control, capital availability, management credibility, and creditor support. Texmaco’s case shows approval when these conditions are met, while Sritex demonstrates rejection due to lack of transparency and unlawful activities. The study underscores the need for a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) that establishes eligibility parameters, approval mechanisms, reporting obligations, and curator protection to ensure consistency, legal certainty, creditor protection, and greater economic benefits in Indonesian bankruptcy practice.
Downloads
References
Amriani, N. (2012). Mediasi alternatif penyelesaian sengketa perdata di pengadilan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Asikin, Z. (2022). Hukum kepailitan. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi.
Asyhadie, Z. (2005). Hukum bisnis: Proses dan pelaksanaannya di Indonesia. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Debt.org. (2020). Insolvency. Retrieved April 20, 2025, from https://www.debt.org/faqs/insolvency/
Garner, B. A., & Campbell, H. (2009). Black’s law dictionary (9th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Ginting, E. R. (2018). Hukum kepailitan: Rapat-rapat kreditor. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Huizink, J. B. (2004). Insolventie. Jakarta: Penerbit Pusat Studi Hukum dan Ekonomi.
Ibrahim, J. (2006). Teori dan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif. Malang: Bayumedia Publishing.
Ikhwansyah, I., Sastrawidjaja, M. S., & Yuniarti, R. (2019). Hukum perusahaan: Analisis privatisasi BUMN dalam hukum persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Bandung: PT Refika Aditama.
International Accounting Standards Framework. (2012). What is going concern value? Retrieved July 29, 2025, from www.appraisalcolorado.com/value-vault/going-concern-value/
Jenny, L., & Ariawan. (2021). Keabsahan pengesahan perjanjian perdamaian pada perkara penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang (Studi Putusan Nomor: 24/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst.). Jurnal Hukum Adigama, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.4.2.371-401
Kinsella, N. S. (1994). A civil law to common law dictionary. Louisiana Law Review, 54(5).
Kusumaatmadja, M. (2002). Konsep-konsep hukum dalam pembangunan (Kumpulan karya tulis). Bandung: Alumni.
Mahmud Marzuki, P. (2007). Penelitian hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Mertokusumo, S. (2000). Bab-bab penemuan hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Mulyani, Z. (2015). Mengawasi pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan sebagai perlindungan terhadap dunia usaha di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata, 1(2).
Munir, F. (2004). Hukum pailit dalam teori dan praktik (Edisi revisi, disesuaikan dengan UU No. 37 Tahun 2004). Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Netherlands Commercial Court. (2019). Glossary of Dutch procedural terminology. Amsterdam District Court.
Nyulistiowati, S., Yuanitasari, D., & Kusmayanti, H. (2025). The status of property granted in the provisions of bankruptcy law in Indonesia. Ius: Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v13i1.1593
Perdamaian, S. (2001, October 12). Syarat-syarat pengajuan kepailitan dan kelemahan hukum acara kepailitan dalam acara forum diskusi. Forum Diskusi, Medan.
Pratama, B. (2014). Kepailitan dalam putusan hakim ditinjau dari perspektif hukum formil dan materil. Jurnal Yudisial, 7(2).
Rahayu, H. (2007). Hukum kepailitan. Malang: UMM Press.
Sastrawidjaja, M. (2014). Hukum kepailitan dan penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang. Bandung: PT Alumni.
Shubhan, M. H. (2008). Hukum kepailitan: Prinsip, norma, dan praktik di peradilan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Silalahi, U., & Tanjung, B. (2021). Perjanjian perdamaian pada proses penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang berulang: Kedudukan dan implikasi. Undang: Jurnal Hukum, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.4.2.371-401
Sjahdeini, S. R. (2018). Sejarah, asas, dan teori hukum kepailitan: Memahami Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
Suryanti, N., Yuanitasari, D., & Kusmayanti, H. (2025). The status of property granted in the provisions of bankruptcy law in Indonesia. Ius, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v13i1.1593.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Demokrasi: Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Politik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
