Concept of Simple Proof of Bankruptcy and PKPU Cases for Apartment and Flat Developers Based on SEMA Number 3 of 2023

Authors

  • Putra Adibil Anam Universitas Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v24i1.5966

Keywords:

condominium, developer, apartment

Abstract

This study aims to determine the formulation of SEMA 3/2023 which states that apartment and flat developers cannot be declared bankrupt because they do not meet the simple evidentiary elements regulated in Article 8 paragraph (4) of the Kepailitan dan PKPU, and how it impacts justice and legal certainty for consumers who act as concurrent creditors. The formulation of the problem is how is the concept of a bankruptcy petition against apartment developers who do not meet the simple evidentiary requirements based on SEMA 3/2023? and, what are the implications for justice and legal certainty for creditors (consumers) if there are limitations on simple evidentiary requirements in SEMA 3/2023? This type of research is normative law with a statutory regulatory approach method. The results of this study are, first, SEMA 3/2023 emphasizes that a bankruptcy petition against apartment and flat developers does not meet the simple evidentiary elements because in practice it is not clear about the type of debt in the case. Second, with the existence of SEMA 3/2023, it is actually a legal breakthrough to guarantee justice and legal certainty for consumers who occupy concurrent creditors. This is considered because consumers are often harmed when developers experience financial difficulties or fail to fulfill their obligations. With the existence of SEMA 3/2023, it can be ensured that consumer interests remain protected.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Refrences

Book

Hutagalung, Arie S. Condominium dan Permasalahannya, Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum UI, Jakarta, 2007.

Rahim, A., Perjanjian Dasar Dasar Hukum: Prespektif Teori dan Praktik, Humanities Genius, Makassar, 2022.

Richard, Eddy, Aspek Legal Properti-Teori, Contoh, dan Aplikasi, Andi Offset, Yogyakarta, 2010.

Santoso, Urip, Hukum Perumahan, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta, 2016.

Sastrawidjaja, Man S., Hukum Kepalitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, Alimni, Bandung, 2006.

Suyudi, Aria, et.all, Kepailitan di Negeri Pailit, Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia, Jakarta, 2004.

Journal

Arihta Esther Tarigan dan Syafrida, “Urutan Kreditur yang Didahulukan Dalam Pelunasan Piutang pada Perkara Kepailitan”, Jurnal Sosial dan Budaya Syar-I, Volume 8, Nomor 2, 2021.

Christiana Derita Risquanty, “Akibat Hukum Kepailitan Bagi Pengembang Terhadap Pembeli (Konsumen) Satuan Rumah Susun (Apartemen)”, Jurnal Education And Development Volume 10 Nomor 3 Edisi September 2022.

Elsa Mellinda Saputri, et.all “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Konsumen Dalam Hal Pengembang (Developer) Apartemen Dinyatakan Pailit” Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Bonum Commune, Volume 2 Nomor 2 Agustus 2019.

Imanuel Rahman, “Perlindungan Hukum Kepada Pembeli Dalam Kepailitan Pengembang (Developer) Rumah Susun”, Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Bonum Commune, Volume I, Nomor 1 Agustus 2018.

Karina Hasiyanni Manurung, et.all, “Perlindungan Konsumen Terhadap Kerugian Akibat Kepailitan Perusahaan Properti”, Socius: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, Volume 1, Nomor 4, November 2023.

Mantili, R., & Dewi, P. E. T. “Perlindungan Kreditor Konkuren Dalam Hukum Kepailitan”, Jurnal Akses, 12(2), 97–108. 2020.

Reinaldo, E, “Aspek Hukum dalam Pembuatan Akta Jual Beli Kos dan Kuasa Jual”, Jurnal Wacana Hukum dan Sains, 2022.

Sari, R. “Dampak Kepailitan Bagi Kreditur Konkuren di Indonesia”. Bullet: Jurnal Multidisiplin Ilmu, 2(3), 524–529. 2023.

Sri Redjeki Slamet dan Fitria Olivia “Permohonan Kepailitan Atas Developer Apartemen Tidak Memenuhi Persyaratan Fakta Yang Terbukti Secara Sederhana Suatu Kajian Keadilan dan Kepastian Hukum” Jurnal Lex Jurnalica, Volume 21 Nomor 1, April 2024.

Thesis

Febryna Maringga Damanik, Akibat Putusan Pemailitan Perusahaan Pengembang Terhadap PPJB Atas SRS (Studi Kasus Putusan No.73/Pailit/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst), Skripsi Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, 2010.

Internet

Chanel Youtube CNBC Indonesia, “Pailit dalam Industri Properti, Siapa Untung Siapa Rugi?” terdapat dalam https://youtu.be/iEvydXQBmDI?si=S3c7qxHFXouhGtAm accessed on 25 Oktober 2024.

Dedy Kurniadi, Pembuktian Sederhana dalam Permohonan PKPU Terhadap Pengembang, Dedy Kurniadi & Co Lawyers, in https://dedykurniadi.com/pembuktian-sederhana-dalam-permohonan-pkpu-terhadap-pengembang.html accessed on 3 Oktober 2024.

Dedi Kurniadi & Co Lawyers “Beberapa Ketentuan Terkait Kepailitan dan PKPU Dalam Undang-Undang No. 4 Tahun 2023 tentang Pengembangan dan Penguatan Sektor Keuangan (“UU PPSK”)“ in https://dedykurniadi.com/beberapa-ketentuan-terkait-kepailitan-dan-pkpu-dalam-undang-undang-no-4-tahun-2023-tentang-pengembangan-dan-penguatan-sektor-keuangan-uu-ppsk.html accessed on 28 Oktober 2024.

Legislation

Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations.

Law Number 20 of 2011 concerning Apartments.

Decision No. 236 K/Pdt.Sus/2010

Decision No.84/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2023/PN.Niaga.Sby

Decision No.97/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2024/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst

Downloads

Published

2025-11-28