Explore the evidence.
Understand the reach.

The establishment of the Bankruptcy Law aims to overcome the difficulties of the business world in terms of debt and receivables in continuing their activities. However, in practice the PKPU and Bankruptcy institutions are used as a means of resolving ordinary civil disputes, this is due to Article 225 paragraph (3) and (5) in conjunction with Article 222 paragraph (1) and (2). The purpose of this study is to analyze the ratio legis for debtors in relation to the ratio legis Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) associated with the purpose of establishing Bankruptcy and Suspension Of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU). This research is normative legal research with a statute approach, the case approach, historical approach, comparative approach, and the conceptual approach. The legal materials used are primary, secondary, and tertiary. The analysis technique uses legal logic, legal interpretation teleologically, hermeneutics, grammatically, and systematically. The results of the study indicate that the ratio legis regarding PKPU as regulated in Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) has a vague norm when it comes to the purpose of establishing UUK-PKPU, that PKPU is a means for debtors so that debtors can restructure their debts. So that no rights are given to debtors who are not present at the PKPU session resulting in no legal protection for the debtor to defend himself by conveying the reasons for the debtor's absence.

The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze law politics related to the execution of bankruptcy decisions against debtor assets abroad. The research method used is normative legal research with a qualitative descriptive analysis method approach, based on comparative law, with prescriptive analytical specifications. The research findings conclude that sovereignty is interpreted as the responsibility to improve and protect all national and international community interests, manifested in the form of the state's ability to interact and establish relations with countries in the world, as well as cooperate and coordinate bilaterally, multilaterally and in international organizations. The provisions on international bankruptcy in Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations or Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (Bankruptcy Law) are similar to the Dutch Bankruptcy Law, there are no comprehensive regulations related to international bankruptcy. To ensure legal certainty, a legal policy is needed in the form of changes and updates to the Bankruptcy Law by adding articles to apply the principles of international bankruptcy in the Model Law, namely the Principle of Access, the Principle of Recognition, the Principle of Assistance and the Principle of Cooperation and Coordination, as applied in the US Bankruptcy Code Chapter 15. Article 299 of the Bankruptcy Law also needs to be amended so that the procedural law applied is the special procedural law for international bankruptcy.

This paper aims to evaluate the regulation model for filing an action pauliana lawsuit by creditors to revoke the debtor’s legal actions prior to the declaration of bankruptcy. The research method used is normative juridical. The results show that the model for regulating the authority of creditors who wish to file an actio pauliana lawsuit against debtors in bankruptcy law can be done by making changes to Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy by adding an article which regulates the procedural law of how a creditor can file a lawsuit. action pauliana in the following way: Creditors who acknowledge the existence of a Debtor's legal action, which is not required to be carried out within one year before the bankruptcy decision is pronounced, may submit an application to the Supervisory Judge by attaching valid evidence so that the Supervisory Judge will issue a ruling concerning the Debtor's legal action is in one year before the bankruptcy decision is pronounced, is not mandatory and shall be revoked.

The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze law politics related to the execution of bankruptcy decisions against debtor assets abroad. The research method used is normative legal research with a qualitative descriptive analysis method approach, based on comparative law, with prescriptive analytical specifications. The research findings conclude that sovereignty is interpreted as the responsibility to improve and protect all national and international community interests, manifested in the form of the state's ability to interact and establish relations with countries in the world, as well as cooperate and coordinate bilaterally, multilaterally and in international organizations. The provisions on international bankruptcy in Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations or Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (Bankruptcy Law) are similar to the Dutch Bankruptcy Law, there are no comprehensive regulations related to international bankruptcy. To ensure legal certainty, a legal policy is needed in the form of changes and updates to the Bankruptcy Law by adding articles to apply the principles of international bankruptcy in the Model Law, namely the Principle of Access, the Principle of Recognition, the Principle of Assistance and the Principle of Cooperation and Coordination, as applied in the US Bankruptcy Code Chapter 15. Article 299 of the Bankruptcy Law also needs to be amended so that the procedural law applied is the special procedural law for international bankruptcy.

This paper aims to evaluate the regulation model for filing an action pauliana lawsuit by creditors to revoke the debtor’s legal actions prior to the declaration of bankruptcy. The research method used is normative juridical. The results show that the model for regulating the authority of creditors who wish to file an actio pauliana lawsuit against debtors in bankruptcy law can be done by making changes to Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy by adding an article which regulates the procedural law of how a creditor can file a lawsuit. action pauliana in the following way: Creditors who acknowledge the existence of a Debtor's legal action, which is not required to be carried out within one year before the bankruptcy decision is pronounced, may submit an application to the Supervisory Judge by attaching valid evidence so that the Supervisory Judge will issue a ruling concerning the Debtor's legal action is in one year before the bankruptcy decision is pronounced, is not mandatory and shall be revoked.

The establishment of the Bankruptcy Law aims to overcome the difficulties of the business world in terms of debt and receivables in continuing their activities. However, in practice the PKPU and Bankruptcy institutions are used as a means of resolving ordinary civil disputes, this is due to Article 225 paragraph (3) and (5) in conjunction with Article 222 paragraph (1) and (2). The purpose of this study is to analyze the ratio legis for debtors in relation to the ratio legis Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) associated with the purpose of establishing Bankruptcy and Suspension Of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU). This research is normative legal research with a statute approach, the case approach, historical approach, comparative approach, and the conceptual approach. The legal materials used are primary, secondary, and tertiary. The analysis technique uses legal logic, legal interpretation teleologically, hermeneutics, grammatically, and systematically. The results of the study indicate that the ratio legis regarding PKPU as regulated in Article 225 paragraph (3) and paragraph (5) has a vague norm when it comes to the purpose of establishing UUK-PKPU, that PKPU is a means for debtors so that debtors can restructure their debts. So that no rights are given to debtors who are not present at the PKPU session resulting in no legal protection for the debtor to defend himself by conveying the reasons for the debtor's absence.