Rahayu Hartini

This study aimed to observe the legal status of the immovable that became a bank guarantee on behalf of third parties in the bankruptcy and whether the curator has the authority to insert objects that have been done Collateral guarantees which Foreclosed (hereinafter referred AYDA) prior to the bankruptcy decision boedel into bankruptcy.The method used is a normative research using three approaches: statute approach, conceptual approach, case approach, and analyzed "conten analysis". Based on the discussion of the results of research obtained the following conclusions: 1). The collateral property of a third party cannot be entered as boedel bankrupt debtor, as a third party guarantee is not a property of the Borrower; It is used as the basis of legal considerations (ratio decidendi) for the judges to decide the case of bankruptcy among Curator Albert Riyadi Suwono (applicant bankruptcy) with PT. Anglomas International Bank (AMIN BANK). 2). Curators do not have the authority to push objects of collateral that has been done AYDA prior to the bankruptcy decision into boedel bankrupt (pursuant to Article 56 Paragraph (1) the Bankruptcy Law that provides a period of suspension of execution rights guarantees security rights 90 (Ninety) days. In order not occur: legal norms are vague (vegen norm) and the conflict of norms and have an impact on the lack of legal certainty. Hence the need to revise the unprotected substrate of law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU. Particularly with respect to Article 55 paragraph (1) and Article 56 paragraph (1).

Dilihat 0 kali

Diunduh 0 kali

This study was to formulate a concept of return policies / principles of the law of "pacta sunt servanda" in Law No. 37 Year 2004 regarding Bankruptcy in bankruptcy to resolve disputes arbitration clause. By promoting legal issue: Why the provisions of Article 303 of Law No. 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU basic rule "pacta sunt servanda" in a bankruptcy dispute resolution by arbitration clause. Research is normative juridical approach the statutory (statute approach), histrorical approach, conceptual approach and case approach. Basingon: doctrine, theory and principles of law and reasoning/logic of the law as a legal argument. From the discussion of the research results obtained conclusions; that Article 303 of Law No. 37 In 2004 the basic rule pacta sunt servanda occurrence in bankruptcy solutions that are its arbitration clause. The principle is metanorma should be legal guidelines for each product that has never been out of the occurrence of any legal basis. (1).Pasal 303,UUK afflicted materil law, when it is left actually dangerous because it can cause legal uncertainty which may result in less used existing legal rules(Article 303 UUK, an article that "kebablasan wrong/confused".(2).Position agreement with the law is the same, meaning that the agreement in this case in particular the provisions of the Arbitration clause made by the party should be the same as in the case of the Law on Bankruptcy. Penelitian ini untuk merumuskan kembali suatu konsep dasar/prinsip hukum "Pacta Sunt Servanda" dalam UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dalam menyelesaikan sengketa pailit dengan klausula arbitrase. Dengan mengedepankan legal issue;Mengapa ketentuan Pasal 303 UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU mengesampingkan asas "Pacta Sunt Servanda" dalam penyelesaian sengketa pailit dengan klausul arbitrase. Merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundangan-undangan (statute approach), histrorical approach, conceptual approach dan case approach. Mendasarkan pada: doktrin, teori dan prinsip hukum dengan penalaran/logika hukum sebagai argumentasi hukum. Dari pembahasan hasil penelitian diperoleh kesimpulan;bahwa Pasal 303 UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 mengesampingkan berlakunya asas Pacta Sunt Servanda dalam penyelesaian masalah kepailitanyang ada klausul arbitrase-nya. Azas merupakan metanorma yang harus dijadikan pedoman bagi setiap produk hukum agar tidak pernah keluar dari berlakunya asas hukum. (1).Pasal 303 UUK mengalami cacat hokummateril, apabila hal ini dibiarkan justru berbahaya karena dapat menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum yang dapat berdampak pada kurang bermanfaatnya aturan hukum yang ada (Pasal 303 UUK, merupakan Pasal yang "kebablasan/salah/keliru".(2).Posisi perjanjian dengan undang-undang adalah sama/sederajad, artinya perjanjian dalam hal ini khususnya ketentuan mengenai Klausul Arbitrase yang dibuat oleh para pihak seharusnya sama berlakunyaseperti halnya UU Kepailitan.

Dilihat 0 kali

Diunduh 0 kali