THE POLEMIC OF REVOKING REQUESTS FOR SUSPENSION OF DEBT PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS IN INDONESIA: PROCEDURAL EVALUATION AND GLOBAL PRACTICE COMPARISON
DOI:
10.54443/ijerlas.v5i4.3617Published:
2025-07-27Downloads
Abstract
The Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations as a debt restructuring instrument under Law No. 37/2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations faces procedural challenges in petition revocation practices, potentially disrupting the balance of rights between Debtors and Creditors. This study analyzes inconsistencies in the application of Article 259 of the Bankruptcy Law in revocation cases, particularly concerning creditor participation mechanisms and adherence to due process principles. An examination of Indonesian case law reveals judicial tendencies to disregard collective creditor notification and hearing requirements, alongside truncated debt verification processes prior to revocation. Key findings demonstrate that the absence of objective revocation criteria in the Bankruptcy Law contributes to judicial decision disparities. The study concludes with three systemic reform recommendations: (1) integration of measurable legal parameters for Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations revocation, (2) enhanced judicial oversight in verifying economic impacts on creditors, and (3) temporal restrictions on revocation proceedings. These findings underscore the urgent need to align the Bankruptcy Law with global best practices in debtor rehabilitation and creditor protection through independent oversight mechanisms and audited financial evidence standards.
Keywords:
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Revocation of Petition Creditor Protection Procedural JusticeReferences
Fuady, M. (2014). Hukum Pailit Dalam Teori & Praktek. PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
Karar, T. A. (2024). Kepailitan Akibat Pembatalan Pengesahan Perjanjian Perdamaian Oleh Kreditor Separatis. NOTARIUS, 17(2), 1215–1231.
Kusumadewi, Y., Wijayanto, P., & Widjajati, E. (2020). Upaya Hukum Bagi Kreditor Apabila Debitor Pailit Tidak Mengakui Atau Menolak Tagihan Utangnya (Studi Putusan Nomor 05/Pdt.SusPailit/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst). Jurnal Krisna Law, 2(2), 182.
Nugroho, S. A. (2018). Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia: Dalam Teori dan Praktik Serta Penerapan Hukumnya. Prenadamedia Group.
Rahardjo, S. (2009). Hukum dan Perilaku: Hidup Baik adalah Hak Asasi. Kompas.
Raharja, N. B., & Gunardi, A. (2023). Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) Dalam Hukum Kepailitan. Jurnal Kewarganegaraan, 7(2), 2010–2011.
Simanjuntak, J. (2023). Tinjauan Hukum Atas Kewenangan Kreditor Mengajukan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. Honeste Vivere, 33(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.55809/hv.v33i1.193
Sjahdeini, S. R. (2010). Hukum Kepailitan: Memahami Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan. Pustaka Utama Grafiti.
Subekti, R. (2023). Hukum Perjanjian. Intermasa.
Sunarmi, Robert, & Sukarja, D. (2023). Suspension of Payment Decision Cassation: Due Process ofLaw VS Legal Certainty. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(9), 6. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i9.998
Suparji. (2018). Kepailitan. UAI Press.
Sutan, R. S. (2016). Sejarah, Asas, dan Teori Hukum Kepailitan. Kencana.
Tansah, E. (2000). Penelitian Hukum tentang Penyelesaian Sengketa Melalui Pengadilan Niaga. Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional dan Departemen Hukum dan Asasi Manusia
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Clarita Stefanie Panjaitan, Hanif Nur Widhiyanti, Zulfahmi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Downloads
How to Cite
