Analisis Terhadap Dissenting Opinion Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Kepailitan Di Indonesia

Abstract

The settlement of a civil case one of the duties of a judge is to investigate whether the legal relationship
that is the basis of the claim really exists or not. For this reason, the judge must know objectively the truth of
the event through proof. The conditions for submitting a bankruptcy application to the commercial court are
very important because if the bankruptcy application does not meet the conditions contained in the PKPU
Bankruptcy Act, the commercial court will not grant the bankruptcy application. However, in this study
bankruptcy problems occurred which were not in accordance with the Act which was granted bankruptcy by PT
Andalan Artha Advisido (AAA Securities). Therefore the purpose of this Thesis Writing, namely: first, To find
out the factors that led to the emergence of dissenting opinions in the settlement of bankruptcy disputes in
Indonesia. Second, to find out an analysis of bankruptcy disputes in Indonesia in the event of a dissenting
opinion.
This type of research can be classified in the type of normative juridical research research, which
examines the principles of law, precisely the principles of jurisprudence and the resolution of disputes
concerning the matter of justice in state practice. In this type of legal research, law is often conceptualized as
what is written in the laws and regulations (law in books) or the law conceptualized as a norm or norm which is
a standard of human behavior that is deemed appropriate. Data sources are used, namely: primary data,
secondary and tertiary data.
The conclusion that can be obtained from the results of the first research, Dissenting opinion in
bankruptcy cases in general is due to the judge's freedom in deciding cases that are limited by the provisions of
the legislation. Whereas in particular the emergence of dissenting opinions in bankruptcy cases is due to
differences in the background of judges examining the bankruptcy case, namely the existence of career judges
and ad-hoc judges. Second, the bankruptcy case of PT. AAA Securities is seen as a mistake, whether committed
by the bankruptcy applicant or the Panel of Judges. The bankrupt applicant submits an application for a
bankruptcy statement against PT. AAA Securities to the Central Jakarta Commercial Court without going
through the Financial Services Authority as the authorized party. And the Panel of Judges does not consider the
provisions of Article 2 paragraph (4) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law. Based on these provisions, the
bankruptcy petitioner should not be authorized to submit an application for bankruptcy to the bankruptcy
respondent, but the authorized party to file a bankruptcy petition against the bankruptcy respondent is only the
Financial Services Authority.