Status Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa Melalui Arbitrase Yang Diajukan Oleh Debitor Di Luar Perkara Kepailitan Kepailitan Terhadap Pernyataan Pailit Debitor Ditinjau Dari Hukum Positif Indonesia.
Status Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa Melalui Arbitrase Yang
Diajukan Oleh Debitor Di Luar Perkara Kepailitan Terhadap
Pernyataan Pailit Debitor Ditinjau Dari Hukum Positif Indonesia
Abstrak
Dimas Ario Bimo
110110090231
Arbitrase merupakan salah satu cara penyelesaian sengketa
perdata di luar peradilan umum. Namun demikian, tidak semua sengketa
dapat diselesaikan melalui forum arbitrase. Salah satunya ialah sengketa
tentang pailit. Pasal 300 UUK-PKPU menyatakan bahwa badan yang
berwenang menyelesaikan permohonan pernyataan pailit adalah
Pengadilan Niaga. Kemudian Pasal 303 UUK-PKPU menegaskan bahwa
Pengadilan Niaga tetap berwenang memeriksa dan menyelesaikan
permohonan pernyataan pailit dari para pihak, sekalipun perjanjian utang
piutang di antara para pihak memuat klausula arbitrase. Ketentuan
tersebut membuka kemungkinan terjadinya kepailitan debitor yang terikat
dalam perjanjian arbitrase maupun debitor yang sedang berperkara
sebagai pemohon di lembaga arbitrase. Permasalahan yang diangkat
dalam skripsi ini adalah mengenai konsekuensi putusan pernyataan pailit
debitor terhadap perjanjian arbitrase antara debitor dan kreditor serta
kewenangan debitor yang telah dinyatakan pailit dalam meneruskan
perkaranya selaku pemohon di lembaga arbitrase.
Penulisan skripsi ini dikaji berdasarkan metode pendekatan yuridis
normatif dengan metode deskriptif analitis, yaitu memfokuskan
pemecahan masalah berdasarkan data yang diperoleh yang kemudian
dianalisa berdasarkan ketentuan dalam perundang-undangan terkait
hukum kepailitan dan hukum arbitrase dan alternatif penyelesaian
sengketa di Indonesia, literatur serta bahan lain yang berhubungan
dengan penelitian dan penelitian lapangan untuk memperoleh data primer
melalui wawancara dan selanjutnya data dianalisis secara yuridis
kualitatif.
Berdasarkan penelitian tersebut diperoleh hasil: Pertama,
konsekuensi putusan pernyataan pailit debitor terhadap perjanjian
arbitrase antara debitor dan kreditor ialah putusan pernyataan pailit
debitor tidak membatalkan perjanjian arbitrase tersebut. Perjanjian
arbitrase tetap berlaku secara sah dan mengikat debitor pailit dengan
kreditornya. Namun demikian, pelaksanaan perjanjian arbitrase tersebut
dalam proses kepailitan dibatasi oleh ketentuan-ketentuan dalam UUKPKPU yang bersifat memaksa. Kedua, kewenangan debitor yang telah
dinyatakan pailit dalam meneruskan perkaranya selaku pemohon di
lembaga arbitrase pada prinsipnya dialihkan kepada kurator. Hal tersebut
dikarenakan debitor pailit demi hukum kehilangan kewenangannya untuk
mengurus dan menguasai harta pailit sejak putusan pernyataan pailit
diucapkan. Kewenangan tersebut beralih demi hukum kepada kurator
berdasarkan UUK-PKPU.
iv
The Legal Status Of Arbitration Proceedings Initiated By A Debtor
Notwithstanding The Commencement Of Bankruptcy Of The Debtor
Based On Indonesian Law
Abstract
Dimas Ario Bimo
110110090231
Arbitration means a method of settling civil disputes outside the
general courts, however disputes that cannot be settled amicably under
the regulations and the force of law may not be resolved by arbitration,
among others is a petition for declaration of bankruptcy. Based on Article
300 paragraph (1) UUK-PKPU, the Commercial Court has an absolute
competency to examine and adjudicate the petition for declaration of
bankruptcy or PKPU. Furthermore, Article 303 UUK-PKPU stipulate that
the Commercial Court shall remain be competent to examine and
adjudicate the petition for declaration of bankruptcy from contracting
parties containing arbitration clause provided that the debt being basis of
application for bankruptcy has fulfilled the requirements as refered to in
Article 2 paragraph 1 UUK-PKPU. The provision opens the possibility of
bankruptcy of a debtor who has bound in the arbitration agreement or the
debtor who has been acting as an applicant in the on-going arbitration
proceeding. Issues raised in this paper are legal consequences of the
bankruptcy declaration decision towards the pre-bankruptcy arbitration
agreement between the debtor and his creditor and the authority of the
bankrupt debtor in forwarding his case as the applicant in the on-going
arbitration proceeding.
The method used for this research based on normative juridical
approaching through descriptive analysis method which focus on problem
solving pursuant to data and regulations regarding bankcrupcy law and
arbitration law in Indonesia, literatures and other materials related to the
research and field research to obtain primary data by interview. The
collected data are then analyzed with qualitative juridical method.
The results obtained from these research is: First, the bankruptcy
declaration decision will not invalidate the application of the prebankruptcy arbitration agreement. However, the execution of the
arbitration agremeent under the bankruptcy proceeding is limited by the
coercive provisions on the UUK-PKPU. Second, the authority of the
bankrupt debtor in forwarding his case as the applicant in the on-going
arbitration proceeding will be taken over by the curator since the bankrupt
debtor shall by law forteit his right to control and manage his assests
included in his bankruptcy as of the date of pronouncement of the
bankruptcy declaration decision.
v
Diajukan Oleh Debitor Di Luar Perkara Kepailitan Terhadap
Pernyataan Pailit Debitor Ditinjau Dari Hukum Positif Indonesia
Abstrak
Dimas Ario Bimo
110110090231
Arbitrase merupakan salah satu cara penyelesaian sengketa
perdata di luar peradilan umum. Namun demikian, tidak semua sengketa
dapat diselesaikan melalui forum arbitrase. Salah satunya ialah sengketa
tentang pailit. Pasal 300 UUK-PKPU menyatakan bahwa badan yang
berwenang menyelesaikan permohonan pernyataan pailit adalah
Pengadilan Niaga. Kemudian Pasal 303 UUK-PKPU menegaskan bahwa
Pengadilan Niaga tetap berwenang memeriksa dan menyelesaikan
permohonan pernyataan pailit dari para pihak, sekalipun perjanjian utang
piutang di antara para pihak memuat klausula arbitrase. Ketentuan
tersebut membuka kemungkinan terjadinya kepailitan debitor yang terikat
dalam perjanjian arbitrase maupun debitor yang sedang berperkara
sebagai pemohon di lembaga arbitrase. Permasalahan yang diangkat
dalam skripsi ini adalah mengenai konsekuensi putusan pernyataan pailit
debitor terhadap perjanjian arbitrase antara debitor dan kreditor serta
kewenangan debitor yang telah dinyatakan pailit dalam meneruskan
perkaranya selaku pemohon di lembaga arbitrase.
Penulisan skripsi ini dikaji berdasarkan metode pendekatan yuridis
normatif dengan metode deskriptif analitis, yaitu memfokuskan
pemecahan masalah berdasarkan data yang diperoleh yang kemudian
dianalisa berdasarkan ketentuan dalam perundang-undangan terkait
hukum kepailitan dan hukum arbitrase dan alternatif penyelesaian
sengketa di Indonesia, literatur serta bahan lain yang berhubungan
dengan penelitian dan penelitian lapangan untuk memperoleh data primer
melalui wawancara dan selanjutnya data dianalisis secara yuridis
kualitatif.
Berdasarkan penelitian tersebut diperoleh hasil: Pertama,
konsekuensi putusan pernyataan pailit debitor terhadap perjanjian
arbitrase antara debitor dan kreditor ialah putusan pernyataan pailit
debitor tidak membatalkan perjanjian arbitrase tersebut. Perjanjian
arbitrase tetap berlaku secara sah dan mengikat debitor pailit dengan
kreditornya. Namun demikian, pelaksanaan perjanjian arbitrase tersebut
dalam proses kepailitan dibatasi oleh ketentuan-ketentuan dalam UUKPKPU yang bersifat memaksa. Kedua, kewenangan debitor yang telah
dinyatakan pailit dalam meneruskan perkaranya selaku pemohon di
lembaga arbitrase pada prinsipnya dialihkan kepada kurator. Hal tersebut
dikarenakan debitor pailit demi hukum kehilangan kewenangannya untuk
mengurus dan menguasai harta pailit sejak putusan pernyataan pailit
diucapkan. Kewenangan tersebut beralih demi hukum kepada kurator
berdasarkan UUK-PKPU.
iv
The Legal Status Of Arbitration Proceedings Initiated By A Debtor
Notwithstanding The Commencement Of Bankruptcy Of The Debtor
Based On Indonesian Law
Abstract
Dimas Ario Bimo
110110090231
Arbitration means a method of settling civil disputes outside the
general courts, however disputes that cannot be settled amicably under
the regulations and the force of law may not be resolved by arbitration,
among others is a petition for declaration of bankruptcy. Based on Article
300 paragraph (1) UUK-PKPU, the Commercial Court has an absolute
competency to examine and adjudicate the petition for declaration of
bankruptcy or PKPU. Furthermore, Article 303 UUK-PKPU stipulate that
the Commercial Court shall remain be competent to examine and
adjudicate the petition for declaration of bankruptcy from contracting
parties containing arbitration clause provided that the debt being basis of
application for bankruptcy has fulfilled the requirements as refered to in
Article 2 paragraph 1 UUK-PKPU. The provision opens the possibility of
bankruptcy of a debtor who has bound in the arbitration agreement or the
debtor who has been acting as an applicant in the on-going arbitration
proceeding. Issues raised in this paper are legal consequences of the
bankruptcy declaration decision towards the pre-bankruptcy arbitration
agreement between the debtor and his creditor and the authority of the
bankrupt debtor in forwarding his case as the applicant in the on-going
arbitration proceeding.
The method used for this research based on normative juridical
approaching through descriptive analysis method which focus on problem
solving pursuant to data and regulations regarding bankcrupcy law and
arbitration law in Indonesia, literatures and other materials related to the
research and field research to obtain primary data by interview. The
collected data are then analyzed with qualitative juridical method.
The results obtained from these research is: First, the bankruptcy
declaration decision will not invalidate the application of the prebankruptcy arbitration agreement. However, the execution of the
arbitration agremeent under the bankruptcy proceeding is limited by the
coercive provisions on the UUK-PKPU. Second, the authority of the
bankrupt debtor in forwarding his case as the applicant in the on-going
arbitration proceeding will be taken over by the curator since the bankrupt
debtor shall by law forteit his right to control and manage his assests
included in his bankruptcy as of the date of pronouncement of the
bankruptcy declaration decision.
v