Titik Singgung Kewenangan Pengadilan Niaga dan Kewenangan Pengadilan Negeri dalam Mengkualifikasikan Utang

Abstract

In Article 1 number 6 of Law Number 37 of 2004 about Bankruptcy and Postponenment of Obligatory Debt Payment, matters regarding debts are explicitly explained, but it is often found that cases which should be the authority of the District Court instead become the authority of the Commercial Court in matters of proof of debt. The objectives of this thesis are, which is to analyze the development of the concept of debt in bankruptcy law in Indonesia, to analyze simple proof of debt in bankruptcy cases and to analyze the intersection of jurisdiction between commercial court and district court in qualifying debt in bankruptcy cases. The type of research used in this research is Normative Legal Research or Doctrinal Research, not sociological legal research or empirical legal research. Normative legal research in this research were gathered by using a statute approach, a case approach and a historical approach. The data sources used are Primary Legal Materials (written rules enforced by the state) Secondary Legal Materials (materials in the form of legal reviews) Tertiary Legal Materials (materials that support legal materials, both primary and secondary). The data collection technique uses descriptive analysis. The results of this thesis research can be concluded, firstly that the Observing the development of the concept of debt in Indonesia shows that the concept of debt has developed significantly starting from Failisement Verordening to UU 37/2004 about Bankruptcy and PKPU. Secondly, simple proof of indication if the debtor has two or more creditors and unable to pay at least one of debt which past due and can be collected, under conditions if the creditor has fulfilled his obligations. Third, the intersection of jurisdiction between commercial court and district court in qualifying debt which differentiates these two court authorities is that if it is simple proof then then the commercial Court has the authority, but if the complicated proof then the district court has the authority. However, it still does not answer the question of which debt-related authority should be the authority of the district court and which should be the authority of the commercial court. Based on this conclusion, it is necessary to amend the legal norms in Article 1 number 6 of Law 37/2004 to strengthen simple proof standards about debt.