skip to main content

INDONESIAN BANKRUPTCY LAW POLICY AFTER POLITICAL & MONETARY TURMOIL IN 1998

*Gede Aditya Pratama orcid  -  Universitas Hindu Indonesia, Indonesia, Indonesia
Elfirda Ade Putri orcid  -  Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya, Indonesia, Indonesia
Arga Pribadi Imawan orcid  -  Northern Illinois University, United States of America, United States

Citation Format:
Abstract

The monetary turmoil that occurred in 1998 plunged Indonesia into an economic crisis that had an unfavorable impact on the national economy, which at the time was dependent on foreign investment. In the end, to help improve the economy in Indonesia, the Government at that time took action to ask for assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The injection of funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provided conditions for the Government of Indonesia to establish new bankruptcy regulations from the commonly used Dutch Bankruptcy Law of 1905 (Faillissements-Verordening, Staatsblad 217/1905 and Staatsblad 348/1906) so that the Government issued Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 1998 concerning Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law. In PERPPU 1/1998, it provides easy bankruptcy application requirements where the conditions only require 2 creditors and one of the creditors has a debt that has matured. Until Law No. 37/2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU was enacted, the requirements for bankruptcy applications remained unchanged, so this paper aims to analyze the requirements for filing bankruptcy applications, which tend to be pro-creditor, so that it is straightforward to put debtors in a state of bankruptcy or PKPU, where the existence of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law should provide help for debtors to find a solution to the debt pressure that has hit the debtor.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: bankruptcy, creditors, debtors, policy

Article Metrics:

  1. Amboro, F. Y. P. (2020). Restrukturisasi Utang Terhadap Perusahaan Go Public Dalam Kepailitan Dan PKPU. Jurnal Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 49(1), 104
  2. Article 163 of the Indische Staatsregeling (IS). (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2024, from https://www.delpher.nl/nl/boeken/view?coll=boeken&identifier=MMKB02:000119339
  3. Elyta Ras Ginting. (2018). Hukum Kepailitan : Teori Kepailitan. Sinar Grafika
  4. Gunawan Widjaja. (2009). Risiko Hukum & Bisnis Perusahaan Pailit. Penebar Swadaya. https://simpus.mkri.id/opac/detail-opac?id=7411
  5. Hadi Shubhan, M. (2008). Hukum Kepailitan: Prinsip, Norma, dan Praktik di Pengadilan. Kencana. www.prenadamedia.com
  6. Hartono, D. T. (2016). Perlindungan Hukum Kreditor Berdasarkan Undang-undang Kepailitan. Legal Opinion, 4(1), 1–9
  7. Hoff, J. (2000). Undang-Undang Kepailitan di Indonesia (penerjemah Kartini Muljadi, S.H.)
  8. Irianto, C. (2015). Penerapan Asas Kelangsungan Usaha Dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaraan Utang (PKPU. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 4(3), 400
  9. Kheriah. (2013). Independensi Pengurus Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) Dalam Hukum Kepailitan. Ilmu Hukum, 2, 239
  10. Lindsey, T. (1998). The IMF and Insolvency Law Reform in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 34(3), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074919812331337450
  11. Sjahdeini, S. R. (2018). Hukum Kepailitan Memahami Undang – Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan. Pustaka Utama Grafiti
  12. Tirayo, A. M., & Halim, Y. (2019). Problematik Definisi Harta Pailit untuk Mencapai Kepastian Hukum dalam Pelaksanaan Kepailitan dan PKPU. Jurnal Ilmiah Penegakan Hukum, 6(2), 130. https://doi.org/10.31289/jiph.v6i2.2963

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2025-02-21 12:58:46

No citation recorded.