Pembuktian Complicated Dikaitakan Dengan Kompetensi Relatif Pengadilan Niaga Dalam Perkara Kepailitan
ABSTRAK
Penanganan perkara kepailitan di Pengadilan Niaga, tidak terlepas dari bukti awal
yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon Pailit, apakah alat-alat bukti yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon
Pailit tersebut sudah merupakan bukti yang membuktikan berdasarkan fakta dan
keadaan hukum yang bersifat sederhana, sesuai dengan apa yang dimaksud bunyi
Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU. Peran pembuktian dalam suatu proses hukum di
Pengadilan Niaga sangatlah penting, karena keputusan-keputusan yang dibuat oleh
Hakim Niaga selalu dan terfokus kepada alat-alat bukti formal yang terungkap
dipersidangan, Hal ini disebabkan hukum acara yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan
perkara-perkara niaga adalah hukum acara perdata sesuai dengan bunyi Pasal 299
UUK-PKPU. Kenyataannya dalam praktik di Pengadilan Niaga tidaklah seindah yang
dilukiskan oleh hukum, karena peranan alat bukti adalah salah satu faktor penting
yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon Pailit untuk mengajukan Permohonan Pernyataan Pailit
di Pengadilan Niaga. Hakim Niaga sangat sensitif dan tajam dalam memberikan
penilaian pada setiap pertimbangan hukum keputusannya. Batasan tentang
pembuktian yang sederhana tidak secara tegas disebutkan didalamUndang-undang
Pailit, sehingga kewenangan Hakim Pengadilan Niaga sangat besar tanpa batasan
yang jelas diberikan oleh Undang-undang.
Penelitian yang berjudul “Pembuktian Complicated Dikaitkan dengan Kompetensi
Relatif Pengadilan Niaga dalam Perkara Kepailitan”, memiliki beberapa
permasalahan hukum yang harus dikaji, meliputi : (a) bagaimanakah pembuktian
yang bersifat sederhana (sumir) dan yang bersifat complicated dalam perkara
kepailitan?; (b) mengapa Undang-Undang Kepailitan mensyaratkan pembuktian
sederhana dalam perkara kepailitan?; dan (c) bagaimanakah Hakim melakukan
pembuktian dalam perkara kepailitan yang mengandung unsur complicated dikaitkan
dengan kompetensi relatif Pengadilan Niaga? Penelitian ini dilakukan secara Juridis
Normatif. Pendekatan ini digunakan untuk mengadakan pendekatan terhadap
permasalahan dengan cara melihat dari segi peraturan perundang-undangan yang
berlaku mengenai hukum pembuktian yaitu tentang Pembuktian yang bersifat
sederhana atau complicated .
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pembuktian sederhana (sumir) sebagai syarat
ketentuan utama di dalam pemeriksaan perkara kepailitan diatur dalam Pasal 8 ayat
(4) UUK-PKPU. Secara sederhana artinya apabila telah terbukti secara sederhana
bahwa debitor mempunyai lebih dari satu kreditor dan bahwa salah satu utangnya
telah jatuh waktu dan dapat ditagih tetapi debitor tidak/belum membayar lunas utangutangnya. Pembuktian yang sederhana atau sumir yang dalam bahasa Belanda
summier atau summierlijk merupakan proses peradilan yang diperpendek, tanpa
keterangan tertulis dari kedua belah pihak tanpa pembuktian yang terperinci dan teliti.
Karena UUK-PKPU tidak memberikan penjelasan yang rinci tentang bagaimana
pembuktian sederhana dilakukan maka untuk mengurangi perbedaan pendapat
diantara para hakim, MA dalam Rapat Kerja Nasional (Rakernas) yang diadakan pada
bulan September 2002 berusaha memberikan batasan pembuktian sederhana ini, yang
i
menghasilkan kesepakatan bahwa pemeriksaan perkara permohonan kepailitan tidak
mengenal adanya eksepsi, jawaban, replik, duplik dan kesimpulan, seperti halnya
dalam gugatan yang bersifat partai. Sedangkan Pembuktian complicated merupakan
bagian dari hukum acara yang dikenal dan berlaku dalam proses penyelesaian perkara
perdata (disamping perkara pidana).
Hakekatnya pembuktian itu dilakukan sendiri oleh pihak yang mengajukan
permohonan pailit, dan Hakim hanya bertugas mendengar, menilai dan
menyimpulkan saja semua pembuktian yang dilakukan oleh pemohon tersebut dan
hakim tidak wajib mendengarkan keterangan (pembuktian) dari termohon, karena
sifat pembuktian dalam perkara kepailitan adalah pembuktian sepihak, yang tidak
mengenal jawab-menjawab, replik, duplik sebagaimana yang berlaku dalam perkara
perdata biasa. Eksistensi Pengadilan Niaga telah menimbulkan pergeseran pada
kompetensi relatif Pengadilan Negeri. Ketika muncul sengketa komersial yang
berhubungan kepailitan, maka tidak serta merta hal itu menjadi kompetensi
Pengadilan Niaga untuk memeriksa dan menyelesaikannya, karena harus dibuktikan
lebih dahulu, apakah sengketa/perkara itu pembuktiannya bersifat sederhana atau
complicated. Bila setelah dilakukan pemeriksaan dengan cara mendengarkan
keterangan-keterangan dari pemohon pailit dan eksepsi dari termohon pailit, maka
hakim Pengadilan Niaga bisa menarik kesimpulan dan memutuskan apakah perkara
itu dikabulkan atau sebaliknya ditolak. Bila dikabulkan, hal itu berarti bahwa perkara
itu adalah perkara yang menjadi kompetensi Pengadilan Niaga. Sedangkan bila
permohonan pailit yang diajukan oleh pemohon ditolak, maka hal itu berarti bahwa
perkara tersebut bukanlah perkara yang termasuk kompetensi Pengadilan Niaga,
melainkan merupakan perkara perdata biasa yang wajib diselesaikan melalui proses
pengajuan gugatan perdata dan merupakan kompetensi Pengadilan Negeri.
Kata-kata kunci :
Pembuktian complicated
Kompetensi relatif
Pengadilan Niaga
ii
ABSTRACT
The handling of bankruptcy cases in the Commercial Court, not apart from the initial
evidence Bankrupt owned by the applicant, whether the evidence held by the
bankruptcy petition is already a proven evidence based on the facts and legal
circumstances that are simple, according to what the content of Article 8 paragraph
(4) Labor Law-PKPU. The role of proof in a legal process in the Commercial Court is
important, because decisions made by judges and Commerce has always focused on
the means of formal proof that revealed in court, This is due to the procedural law
which are used in the examination of commercial matters is the law of procedure civil
accordance with Article 299 UUK-PKPU sound. In fact in practice in the Commercial
Court is not as beautiful as that described by the law, because the role of evidence is
one important factor that is owned by the applicant to file an application Bankrupt
Statement at the Commercial Court. Judge Commerce is very sensitive and sharp in
their assessments on any consideration of legal decisions. Limitations of the simple
proof is not explicitly mentioned in regulation Bankrupt Act, so that the authority of
the Commercial Court Judge very large without clear boundaries provided by the Act.
The study, entitled "Proof of Relative Competence Complicated Associated with
the Commercial Court in Bankruptcy Cases", has some legal issues that must be
assessed, include: (a) how is the proof that is both simple (summary) and which is
complicated in the case of bankruptcy?; (B) why the Bankruptcy Act requires a
simple proof in the case of bankruptcy?, and (c) how judges conduct of proof in cases
of bankruptcy that contain complicated elements associated with the relative
competence of the Commercial Court? The research was conducted by juridical
Normative. This approach is used to hold the approach to the problem by looking at
in terms of legislation that applies the law of evidence Evidence that is about to be
simple or complicated. The results showed that a simple proof (summary) as a
condition of the main provisions in the bankruptcy case investigation provided for in
Article 8 paragraph (4) Labor Law-PKPU. Put simply it means if it has been shown to
be simply that the debtor has more than one creditor, and that one of its debt has
fallen time and can be billed but the debtor did not / has not paid off his debts. Proof
that simple or summary in Dutch summierlijk or judicial process is shortened,
without the written statements from both sides without a detailed and rigorous
proof. Because UUK-PKPU not provide a detailed explanation of how a simple proof
is done then to reduce the differences of opinion among the judges, the Supreme
Court in National Working Meeting (Conggress) held in September 2002 sought to
give a simple proof of this restriction, which resulted in an agreement that the case
investigation bankruptcy petition did not know of any exceptions, answers, replic,
closing argument and conclusions, as well as in a lawsuit that is party. While the
complicated proof is part of procedural law, known and applicable in a civil case
settlement process (in addition to criminal cases). The term or complicated words, as
opposed to simple words (summary) not found in the statute. This term is the author
of the adoption of the opinion Setiawan in his book "Various Issues of Law and Civil
iii
Procedure", which states that the word "simple" is meant a process proceedings that
are not "complicated" (not complicated). The term complicated reasoning is also
found in the inverted (argumentum a contrario) conducted by the Commercial Court
in Decision No. Medan. 02 / Bankruptcy / 2009 / PN. Commerce / Medan, dated
November 12, 2009, in a bankruptcy case between PT. Blessing Oil Sumatra
(Applicant) against PPP (Pacipik Palmindo Industry) and 63 other debtor
(respondent). If the authentication is simple in the case of petition for bankruptcy do
not know of any exceptions, answers, replik, closing argument and conclusion, then
in ordinary civil cases with complicated evidentiary principles recognize the
existence of exceptions, answers, replik, closing argument and conclusions. The
reason the principle of setting a simple proof in the UUK-PKPU especially in order to
resolve matters of bankruptcy is to protect the interests of both creditors and
debtors. Determination of the period (time frame) a brief in the bankruptcy settlement
actually aims to close the defect or the opportunity for debtors to commit fraud,
transfer of property (assets) or actions and other measures detrimental to the interests
and rights of creditors. In addition, the settlement of debts protracted (long) within the
framework of UUK-PKPU would interfere with plans and business continuity as well
as the achievement of business targets of the business (both creditors and debtors)
which in principle is always a race against time (target) and mostly very on loan
capital from investors (investors) who certainly has a lot of risk as the risk of
congestion debt payments (principal and interest), dividends or profit sharing. Surely
the judges who examine cases of bankruptcy, both at the level judex facti, judex juris
(an appeal) and reconsideration, highly dependent on the verification carried out
unilaterally by the applicant of bankruptcy (besides the exception of the respondent
bankrupt). In other words, how the judge in the conduct of proof in cases of
bankruptcy, whether the case contains the complicated nature of the evidence or not
is highly dependent on the testimony, witnesses or evidence carried out by the
applicant bankrupt. With the passive role of the judge, essentially proving that done
by the party who filed for bankruptcy, and the judge on duty only to listen, assess and
conclude it all done by the applicant's evidence and the judge is not obliged to listen
to the information (evidence) of the respondent, because the nature of proof in a
bankruptcy case is one-sided evidence, that knows no-answer answer, replik, closing
argument as applicable in ordinary civil case. The existence of the Commercial Court
has caused a shift in the relative competence of the District Court. When commercial
disputes arise related to bankruptcy, it is not necessarily it being the competence of
the Commercial Court to examine and solve it, because it must be proved first,
whether the dispute / lawsuit was the proof is simple or complicated. If after
examination by listening to explanations from the applicant's bankruptcy and the
demurrer of the respondent bankrupt, then the Commercial Court can draw
conclusions and decide whether the case is granted or rejected otherwise. If granted, it
means that the case is a case that became the competence of the Commercial
Court. Meanwhile, when the bankruptcy petition filed by the applicant is rejected,
then it means that the case was not the case that includes the competence of the
iv
Commercial Court, but rather an ordinary civil case should be settled through the
process of filing a civil suit and the competence of the District Court.
Key words : proof complicated.
Relative competence.
Commercial Court
v
Penanganan perkara kepailitan di Pengadilan Niaga, tidak terlepas dari bukti awal
yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon Pailit, apakah alat-alat bukti yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon
Pailit tersebut sudah merupakan bukti yang membuktikan berdasarkan fakta dan
keadaan hukum yang bersifat sederhana, sesuai dengan apa yang dimaksud bunyi
Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU. Peran pembuktian dalam suatu proses hukum di
Pengadilan Niaga sangatlah penting, karena keputusan-keputusan yang dibuat oleh
Hakim Niaga selalu dan terfokus kepada alat-alat bukti formal yang terungkap
dipersidangan, Hal ini disebabkan hukum acara yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan
perkara-perkara niaga adalah hukum acara perdata sesuai dengan bunyi Pasal 299
UUK-PKPU. Kenyataannya dalam praktik di Pengadilan Niaga tidaklah seindah yang
dilukiskan oleh hukum, karena peranan alat bukti adalah salah satu faktor penting
yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon Pailit untuk mengajukan Permohonan Pernyataan Pailit
di Pengadilan Niaga. Hakim Niaga sangat sensitif dan tajam dalam memberikan
penilaian pada setiap pertimbangan hukum keputusannya. Batasan tentang
pembuktian yang sederhana tidak secara tegas disebutkan didalamUndang-undang
Pailit, sehingga kewenangan Hakim Pengadilan Niaga sangat besar tanpa batasan
yang jelas diberikan oleh Undang-undang.
Penelitian yang berjudul “Pembuktian Complicated Dikaitkan dengan Kompetensi
Relatif Pengadilan Niaga dalam Perkara Kepailitan”, memiliki beberapa
permasalahan hukum yang harus dikaji, meliputi : (a) bagaimanakah pembuktian
yang bersifat sederhana (sumir) dan yang bersifat complicated dalam perkara
kepailitan?; (b) mengapa Undang-Undang Kepailitan mensyaratkan pembuktian
sederhana dalam perkara kepailitan?; dan (c) bagaimanakah Hakim melakukan
pembuktian dalam perkara kepailitan yang mengandung unsur complicated dikaitkan
dengan kompetensi relatif Pengadilan Niaga? Penelitian ini dilakukan secara Juridis
Normatif. Pendekatan ini digunakan untuk mengadakan pendekatan terhadap
permasalahan dengan cara melihat dari segi peraturan perundang-undangan yang
berlaku mengenai hukum pembuktian yaitu tentang Pembuktian yang bersifat
sederhana atau complicated .
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pembuktian sederhana (sumir) sebagai syarat
ketentuan utama di dalam pemeriksaan perkara kepailitan diatur dalam Pasal 8 ayat
(4) UUK-PKPU. Secara sederhana artinya apabila telah terbukti secara sederhana
bahwa debitor mempunyai lebih dari satu kreditor dan bahwa salah satu utangnya
telah jatuh waktu dan dapat ditagih tetapi debitor tidak/belum membayar lunas utangutangnya. Pembuktian yang sederhana atau sumir yang dalam bahasa Belanda
summier atau summierlijk merupakan proses peradilan yang diperpendek, tanpa
keterangan tertulis dari kedua belah pihak tanpa pembuktian yang terperinci dan teliti.
Karena UUK-PKPU tidak memberikan penjelasan yang rinci tentang bagaimana
pembuktian sederhana dilakukan maka untuk mengurangi perbedaan pendapat
diantara para hakim, MA dalam Rapat Kerja Nasional (Rakernas) yang diadakan pada
bulan September 2002 berusaha memberikan batasan pembuktian sederhana ini, yang
i
menghasilkan kesepakatan bahwa pemeriksaan perkara permohonan kepailitan tidak
mengenal adanya eksepsi, jawaban, replik, duplik dan kesimpulan, seperti halnya
dalam gugatan yang bersifat partai. Sedangkan Pembuktian complicated merupakan
bagian dari hukum acara yang dikenal dan berlaku dalam proses penyelesaian perkara
perdata (disamping perkara pidana).
Hakekatnya pembuktian itu dilakukan sendiri oleh pihak yang mengajukan
permohonan pailit, dan Hakim hanya bertugas mendengar, menilai dan
menyimpulkan saja semua pembuktian yang dilakukan oleh pemohon tersebut dan
hakim tidak wajib mendengarkan keterangan (pembuktian) dari termohon, karena
sifat pembuktian dalam perkara kepailitan adalah pembuktian sepihak, yang tidak
mengenal jawab-menjawab, replik, duplik sebagaimana yang berlaku dalam perkara
perdata biasa. Eksistensi Pengadilan Niaga telah menimbulkan pergeseran pada
kompetensi relatif Pengadilan Negeri. Ketika muncul sengketa komersial yang
berhubungan kepailitan, maka tidak serta merta hal itu menjadi kompetensi
Pengadilan Niaga untuk memeriksa dan menyelesaikannya, karena harus dibuktikan
lebih dahulu, apakah sengketa/perkara itu pembuktiannya bersifat sederhana atau
complicated. Bila setelah dilakukan pemeriksaan dengan cara mendengarkan
keterangan-keterangan dari pemohon pailit dan eksepsi dari termohon pailit, maka
hakim Pengadilan Niaga bisa menarik kesimpulan dan memutuskan apakah perkara
itu dikabulkan atau sebaliknya ditolak. Bila dikabulkan, hal itu berarti bahwa perkara
itu adalah perkara yang menjadi kompetensi Pengadilan Niaga. Sedangkan bila
permohonan pailit yang diajukan oleh pemohon ditolak, maka hal itu berarti bahwa
perkara tersebut bukanlah perkara yang termasuk kompetensi Pengadilan Niaga,
melainkan merupakan perkara perdata biasa yang wajib diselesaikan melalui proses
pengajuan gugatan perdata dan merupakan kompetensi Pengadilan Negeri.
Kata-kata kunci :
Pembuktian complicated
Kompetensi relatif
Pengadilan Niaga
ii
ABSTRACT
The handling of bankruptcy cases in the Commercial Court, not apart from the initial
evidence Bankrupt owned by the applicant, whether the evidence held by the
bankruptcy petition is already a proven evidence based on the facts and legal
circumstances that are simple, according to what the content of Article 8 paragraph
(4) Labor Law-PKPU. The role of proof in a legal process in the Commercial Court is
important, because decisions made by judges and Commerce has always focused on
the means of formal proof that revealed in court, This is due to the procedural law
which are used in the examination of commercial matters is the law of procedure civil
accordance with Article 299 UUK-PKPU sound. In fact in practice in the Commercial
Court is not as beautiful as that described by the law, because the role of evidence is
one important factor that is owned by the applicant to file an application Bankrupt
Statement at the Commercial Court. Judge Commerce is very sensitive and sharp in
their assessments on any consideration of legal decisions. Limitations of the simple
proof is not explicitly mentioned in regulation Bankrupt Act, so that the authority of
the Commercial Court Judge very large without clear boundaries provided by the Act.
The study, entitled "Proof of Relative Competence Complicated Associated with
the Commercial Court in Bankruptcy Cases", has some legal issues that must be
assessed, include: (a) how is the proof that is both simple (summary) and which is
complicated in the case of bankruptcy?; (B) why the Bankruptcy Act requires a
simple proof in the case of bankruptcy?, and (c) how judges conduct of proof in cases
of bankruptcy that contain complicated elements associated with the relative
competence of the Commercial Court? The research was conducted by juridical
Normative. This approach is used to hold the approach to the problem by looking at
in terms of legislation that applies the law of evidence Evidence that is about to be
simple or complicated. The results showed that a simple proof (summary) as a
condition of the main provisions in the bankruptcy case investigation provided for in
Article 8 paragraph (4) Labor Law-PKPU. Put simply it means if it has been shown to
be simply that the debtor has more than one creditor, and that one of its debt has
fallen time and can be billed but the debtor did not / has not paid off his debts. Proof
that simple or summary in Dutch summierlijk or judicial process is shortened,
without the written statements from both sides without a detailed and rigorous
proof. Because UUK-PKPU not provide a detailed explanation of how a simple proof
is done then to reduce the differences of opinion among the judges, the Supreme
Court in National Working Meeting (Conggress) held in September 2002 sought to
give a simple proof of this restriction, which resulted in an agreement that the case
investigation bankruptcy petition did not know of any exceptions, answers, replic,
closing argument and conclusions, as well as in a lawsuit that is party. While the
complicated proof is part of procedural law, known and applicable in a civil case
settlement process (in addition to criminal cases). The term or complicated words, as
opposed to simple words (summary) not found in the statute. This term is the author
of the adoption of the opinion Setiawan in his book "Various Issues of Law and Civil
iii
Procedure", which states that the word "simple" is meant a process proceedings that
are not "complicated" (not complicated). The term complicated reasoning is also
found in the inverted (argumentum a contrario) conducted by the Commercial Court
in Decision No. Medan. 02 / Bankruptcy / 2009 / PN. Commerce / Medan, dated
November 12, 2009, in a bankruptcy case between PT. Blessing Oil Sumatra
(Applicant) against PPP (Pacipik Palmindo Industry) and 63 other debtor
(respondent). If the authentication is simple in the case of petition for bankruptcy do
not know of any exceptions, answers, replik, closing argument and conclusion, then
in ordinary civil cases with complicated evidentiary principles recognize the
existence of exceptions, answers, replik, closing argument and conclusions. The
reason the principle of setting a simple proof in the UUK-PKPU especially in order to
resolve matters of bankruptcy is to protect the interests of both creditors and
debtors. Determination of the period (time frame) a brief in the bankruptcy settlement
actually aims to close the defect or the opportunity for debtors to commit fraud,
transfer of property (assets) or actions and other measures detrimental to the interests
and rights of creditors. In addition, the settlement of debts protracted (long) within the
framework of UUK-PKPU would interfere with plans and business continuity as well
as the achievement of business targets of the business (both creditors and debtors)
which in principle is always a race against time (target) and mostly very on loan
capital from investors (investors) who certainly has a lot of risk as the risk of
congestion debt payments (principal and interest), dividends or profit sharing. Surely
the judges who examine cases of bankruptcy, both at the level judex facti, judex juris
(an appeal) and reconsideration, highly dependent on the verification carried out
unilaterally by the applicant of bankruptcy (besides the exception of the respondent
bankrupt). In other words, how the judge in the conduct of proof in cases of
bankruptcy, whether the case contains the complicated nature of the evidence or not
is highly dependent on the testimony, witnesses or evidence carried out by the
applicant bankrupt. With the passive role of the judge, essentially proving that done
by the party who filed for bankruptcy, and the judge on duty only to listen, assess and
conclude it all done by the applicant's evidence and the judge is not obliged to listen
to the information (evidence) of the respondent, because the nature of proof in a
bankruptcy case is one-sided evidence, that knows no-answer answer, replik, closing
argument as applicable in ordinary civil case. The existence of the Commercial Court
has caused a shift in the relative competence of the District Court. When commercial
disputes arise related to bankruptcy, it is not necessarily it being the competence of
the Commercial Court to examine and solve it, because it must be proved first,
whether the dispute / lawsuit was the proof is simple or complicated. If after
examination by listening to explanations from the applicant's bankruptcy and the
demurrer of the respondent bankrupt, then the Commercial Court can draw
conclusions and decide whether the case is granted or rejected otherwise. If granted, it
means that the case is a case that became the competence of the Commercial
Court. Meanwhile, when the bankruptcy petition filed by the applicant is rejected,
then it means that the case was not the case that includes the competence of the
iv
Commercial Court, but rather an ordinary civil case should be settled through the
process of filing a civil suit and the competence of the District Court.
Key words : proof complicated.
Relative competence.
Commercial Court
v