Kedudukan Personal Guarantee Dalam Memberikan Jaminan Kepada Kreditur Atas Fasilitas Kredit Yang Diperoleh Oleh Debitur Terkait Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) (Studi Kasus Atas Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Niaga Jakarta Pusat Nomor : 212/Pdt.Sus/-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst tanggal 23 Oktober 2019)

Abstract

This study aims to introduce an investigation into Indonesian regulations regarding the responsibilities and implementation of Debt Payment Suspension (PKPU) who the goal of solving and providing legat solutions. The issues to he studied are. First, how is the position of personal guarantee in the evem of debtor default related to 'KPU? Second, what are the legal consequences of the waiver of the special rights of a personal guarantee as a guarantor subject to PKPU? Third, how is the analysis of the judicial considerations in resolving PKPU cases in Decision No. 212/Pelt Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Jkt Pst related to the personal guarantee?

This research employs a normative legal approach. The data sources consist of secondary tata, including primary and secondary legal materials Data collection teenniques include library research and court decisions, with document studies as the primary tool for data collection. Data were analyzed using content analysis methods on court decisions to provide accurate legal solutions to the issues raised.

The results of this study reveal that First, an individual guarantor should not be positioned as a respondent in PKPU, Second, the legal consequences of a guarantor waiving their special rights mean they are deemed to have bound themselves alongside the principal debtor. However, the context of the waiver of special rights only applies to seizures in bankruptcy, not PKPU. Third, the judicial considerations in the Central Jakarta Commercial Court Decision No. 212/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga Jkt.Pst take into account the formal requirements of the PKPU application, noting that one requirement was not fulfilled, namely that the PKPU could not be proven in a straightforward manner due to the inclusion of the guarantee as a respondent, which is erroneous and contradicts Article 254 of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Lave