Akibat Hukum Bagi Kreditor yang Dimasukkan ke Dalam Daftar Piutang Tetap Setelah Melewati Jangka Waktu Renvoi Prosedur (Studi Putusan Nomor 18/Pdt.Sus Renvoi/2023/PN Niaga Mdn)

Abstract

Creditors have the right to collect their receivables through the mechanism set by the ICC Law. One of the crucial stages in resolving bankruptcy is the preparation of the Fixed Receivables List (DPT), which determines which creditors are entitled to receive payments from the bankruptcy debtor's assets. However, in practice, there are often problems where creditors are not recognized in the list, either due to negligence, administrative errors, or unclear receivables verification procedures. This condition has the potential to cause significant legal consequences for creditors, including the loss of the right to repay receivables. This study aims to analyze the legal consequences for creditors who are listed in the Fixed Receivables List after passing the renvoi procedure period, focusing on the case study of PT Ricky Kurniawan Kertapersada based on Decision Number 18.Pdt. Sus-Renvoi/2023/PN Niaga Mdn. This study uses a normative legal method with a legislative and case approach to understand in depth the legal implications of not including creditors in the Fixed Receivables List. The data sources used consisted of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials that were analyzed using descriptive-analytical methods. With this approach, the study evaluates the legal basis related to the mechanism for compiling the Fixed Receivables List, the procedure for submitting objections through a procedural renvoi, as well as the legal implications that arise for creditors who have lost their collection rights. The results of this study show that KLHK’s efforts to propose procedural review efforts are irrelevant. Renvoi procedures can only be submitted within the deadline before or at the time of the receivables matching meeting. As a result of KLHK not submitting a renvoi within the specified time, the only legal remedy available to KLHK is through other lawsuits as stipulated in Article 3 Paragraph (1) of the PKPU Law. Thus, the use of the renvoi mechanism by KLHK has expired and cannot be used as a basis for changing the status of receivables that have been recognized in the DPT. The main problem in this case lies in the judge's decision which actually granted the objection of KLHK on the basis of procedural renvoi and designated KLHK as a creditor, even though the renvoi in this case is legally irrelevant and inappropriately used. This actually creates inconsistencies with the bankruptcy legal framework that strictly regulates time limits and procedures in the verification and recognition process of receivables. The judge should have rejected the objection application because it did not comply with the provisions stipulated in the UUK-KPU and encouraged KLHK to take other lawsuit channels as a legal mechanism according to the law.