The Principle of Justice in the Legal Position of Suretyship in Indonesian Insolvency Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v6i2.1121Keywords:
Suretyship; Justice; Bankruptcy; PKPU; Commercial Court.Abstract
This paper analyzes the legal position of suretyship (borg) in Indonesian bankruptcy and debt suspension (PKPU) proceedings, focusing on the principle of justice. The study addresses the incomplete norms in Law Number 37 of 2004, which do not explicitly regulate petitions against sureties. Using a normative juridical method based on statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the research finds that sureties are often treated as debtors, even though the Indonesian Civil Code defines suretyship as accessory and subsidiary. Several court verdicts have accepted joint petitions against debtors and sureties without independent proof or separate legal assessment. This precedent undermines commutative and procedural justice, as the surety does not bear primary responsibility and is not a joint and several debtors. These findings indicate the need for legal reform to ensure that the surety receives separate procedural treatment aligned with their legal capacity.
References
Amalia, N. (2013). Hukum Perikatan. Lhokseumawe: Unimal Press.
Aristoteles. (2011). Nicomachean Ethics, Book V. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bergervoet. (2014). Borgtocht. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fuady, M. (2013). Hukum Jaminan Utang. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Fuller, L. L. (1964). The Morality of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hadi, K. (2013). Analisis Terhadap Kepailitan Penjaminan Pribadi (Borgtocht) Dalam Perkara Kepailitan Nomor 09/PAILIT/2005/PN. NIAGA.JKT.PST. Riau: Universitas Riau.
Harahap, Y. (1982). Segi-Segi Hukum Perjanjian. Bandung: Alumni.
Harahap, Y. (2019). Hukum Acara Perdata: Gugatan, Persidangan, Penyitaan, Pembuktian, dan Putusan Pengadilan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafik.
Hernoko, A. Y. (2010). Keseimbangan Versus Keadilan Dalam Kontrak (Upaya Menata Struktur Hubungan Bisnis dalam Perspektif Kontrak yang Berkeadilan). Surabaya: Universitas Airlangga.
J. Scholten, Y. Scholten, Bregstein. (2013). Verzamelde Geschriften Van Prof. Mr. Paul Scholten. Retrieved from Paul Scholten: https://paulscholten.eu/cp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Scholten-deel4.pdf
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata
Koops, E. (2010). Vormen van subsidiariteit: een historisch-comparatistische studie naar het subsidiariteitsbeginsel bij pand, hypotheek en borgtocht. Leiden: Leiden University.
Marzuki, P. M. (2005). Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Nugroho, S. A. (2018). Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia: Dalam Teori dan Praktik Serta Penerapan. Jakarta: Kencana.
Putusan Nomor 24/Pailit/2015/PN-Niaga.Surabaya
Putusan Nomor 4/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN-Niaga.Sby
Putusan Nomor 141/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN.Niaga-Jkt.Pst
Qamar, N. (2017). Metode Penelitian Hukum (Legal Research Methods). Makassar: CV Social Politic Genius.
Ramadhania, L. M. (2023). A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law. Ihsa Institute (Institut Hukum Sumberdaya Alam), Vol. 12 No. 1, .
Rawls, J. (2006). A Theory of Justice: Teori Keadilan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Soekanto, S. (2003). Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang
Usanti. (2019). Penafsiran Hukum: Teori dan Metode,. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Yuhelson. (2019). Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia. Gorontalo: Ideas Publishing.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
