Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai perlindungan hukum bagi Kreditor Buruh yang ada dalam kepailitan PT Kertas Leces Persero dengan merujuk pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2020. Adapun yang menjadi pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah terkait kedudukan buruh sebagai Kreditor dalam kepailitan PT Kertas Leces Persero, serta eksekusi hak buruh tersebut sebagaimana termuat dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2020 dengan mengacu kepada peraturan dan putusan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Penelitian yang dilakukan merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan metode analisis kualitatif, sehingga akan berfokus kepada norma-norma hukum yang berlaku dan termuat dalam peraturan-peraturan yang ada di Indonesia serta melihat penerapannya di masyarakat sebagai dasar dalam menganalisis. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pada dasarnya, Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang yang berlaku sebagai landasan hukum kepailitan di Indonesia tidak mengatur secara jelas mengenai kedudukan buruh dalam hal mengalami kepailitan. Namun, dalam Pasal 95 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan dijelaskan bahwasanya upah dan hak-hak buruh lainnya didahulukan pembayarannya. Hal ini dipertegas dengan dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 67/PUU-XI/2013. Ketentuan yang sejalan juga termuat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2023 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2022 tentang Cipta Kerja menjadi Undang-Undang. Selanjutnya, eksekusi hak buruh PT Kertas Leces Persero sendiri telah berjalan sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku akan tetapi belum maksimal dikarenakan adanya beberapa hambatan yang ditemui dalam proses pemberesan harta pailit, yang mana di dalamnya juga terdapat eksekusi hak buruh. Kondisi ini sangat disayangkan mengingat proses kepailitan sejatinya berjalan sesuai dengan hukum acara kepailitan yang berasaskan cepat dan sederhana.

---

This thesis discusses the legal protection for Labor Creditors in the bankruptcy of PT Kertas Leces Persero based on the Decree of Supreme Court Number 1 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2020. The main issues that will be discussed in this thesis are related to the position of the laborers as Creditors in the bankruptcy of PT Kertas Leces Persero, as well as the execution of the labor rights as stated in the Decree of Supreme Court Number 1 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2020 by referring to the existing regulations and decree in Indonesia. Thesis that conducted is normative juridical thesis with a qualitative analysis method, which will focus on the legal norms that apply and are stated in regulations in Indonesia, and observe the implementation in society as a basis to analyze. The result of this thesis shows that basically, Law Number 37 year 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations which applies as a legal basis for bankruptcy in Indonesia does not clearly regulate the position of laborers in terms of bankruptcy. However, Article 95 paragraph (4) of Law Number 13 year 2003 regarding Manpower explains that wages and other labor rights take precedence in payment. This is emphasized by the issuance of the Decree of Constitutional Court Number 67/PUU-XI/2013. Similar regulation is also contained in Law Number 6 year 2023 regarding the Stipulation of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law Number 2 year 2022 regarding Job Creation into Law. Furthermore, the execution of labor rights of PT Kertas Leces Persero itself has been running properly in accordance with prevailing regulations but has not been maximized due to several obstacles encountered in the process of bankruptcy assets settlement, including the execution of labor rights. This condition is very unfornate considering that the bankruptcy process supposedly runs in accordance with the bankruptcy procedural law which is based on speed and simplicity."

"Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli merupakan perjanjian pendahuluan yang berisikan janji yang harus dipenuhi oleh para pihak sebelum dapat dilaksanakannya jual beli. Dalam praktik, terdapat perjanjian pengikatan jual beli yang tak kunjung dibuat akta jual beli hingga pihak penjual yakni PT. ASCO dinyatakan pailit dan objek dalam perjanjian pengikatan jual beli ditetapkan sebagai boedel pailit PT. ASCO sebagaimana Putusan No. 1245 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2020 dan Putusan No. 15/Pdt.Sus-Gugatanlain-lain/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. Dalam putusan a quo terdapat perbedaan dalam majelis hakim menilai kedudukan hukum perjanjian pengikatan jual beli yang juga berimplikasi pada perbedaan implementasi ketentuan Pasal 34 Undang-undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Penelitian ini mengkaji kedudukan hukum perjanjian pengikatan jual beli hak atas tanah yang dimasukkan ke dalam boedel pailit serta implementasi ketentuan Pasal 34 Undang-undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah yuridis normatif dan bentuk penelitian eksplanatoris. Berdasarkan Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata dan Hukum Pertanahan, peralihan hak atas tanah dibuktikan dengan akta jual beli yang dibuat dihadapan pejabat pembuat akta tanah. Namun berdasarkan angka 7 Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2016, peralihan hak atas tanah secara hukum berdasarkan perjanjian pengikatan jual beli telah terjadi apabila objek jual beli telah dibayar lunas, objek telah dikuasai dan pembeli beritikad baik. Dalam kedua putusan a quo perjanjian pengikatan jual beli telah menunjukkan terjadinya peralihan hak atas objek sengketa sehingga Pasal 34 Undang-undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tidak tepat diterapkan dalam Putusan No. 15/Pdt.Sus-Gugatanlain-lain/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst sehingga sudah seharusnya dikeluarkan dari boedel pailit PT. ASCO.

---

Sale and Purchase Agreement is a preliminary agreement that contains promises that must be fulfilled by the parties before the sale and purchase can be carried out. In practice, there is a case of Sale and Purchase Agreement which has never been made into a Deed of Sale until the seller, namely PT. ASCO is declared bankrupt and the object in the Sale and Purchase Agreement is determined as a boedel bankruptcy of PT. ASCO, which causes losses to the buyer as stated in Decision No. 1245 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2020 and Decision No. 15/Pdt.Sus-Gugatan Lain-Lain/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. As for the two a quo decisions, the panel of judges have different assessments regarding the legal position of the Sale and Purchase Agreement which resulted in a different implementation of Article 34 of the Law Number 37 Year 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts. In this regard, this case study will examine further the legal position of Sale and Purchase Agreement which is included in the bankruptcy boedel as well as the implementation of Article 34 of the Law Number 37 Year 2004 on the legal position of Sale and Purchase Agreement which is included in the boedel bankruptcy. The research method used is normative juridical and explanatory research. The results of the case study are that in the Civil Code and Land Law basically, Sale and Purchase Agreement is not evidencing that there has been a transfer of land rights because the transfer of land rights can only be proven by the existence of a Deed of Sale made before a landed officer. However, based on number 7 of Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2016, the transfer of land rights based on Sale and Purchase Agreement has occurred if the buyer has paid in full the object of sale and purchase, the object has been possessed by the buyer and the buyer obtained the land rights based on good faith. In both a quo decisions, the provisions in both a quo cases has shown a transfer of rights of the object of dispute and therefore Article 34 of the Law Number 37 Year 2004 should not be applied in Decision No. 15/Pdt.Sus-Gugatan Lain-Lain/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst because the element of having the intention to transfer rights in Article 34 of the Law Number 37 Year 2004 has been exceeded since the transfer of rights of the Object of Dispute has been completed before PT. ASCO was declared bankrupt so it should have been removed from the bankruptcy boedel of PT. ASCO."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas masalah putusan PK Mahkamah Agung yang tidak dapat diterima sehingga mengakibatkan PT Kertas Leces (Persero) dinyatakan dalam keadaan pailit dan risiko bisnis yang ditimbulkan dari Kepailitan PT Kertas Leces (Persero) sebagai BUMN Persero. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa akibat terjadi pembatalan perdamaian (homologasi) yang diajukan oleh karyawan PT Kertas Leces (Persero) maka PT Kertas Leces (Persero) dinyatakan pailit sehingga tidak dapat melakukan upaya hukum baik kasasi maupun peninjauan kembali ke Mahkamah Agung. Pada saat PT Kertas Leces (Persero) dinyatakan pailit maka risiko bisnis yang ditimbulkan adalah sita umum atas seluruh kekayaan PT Kertas Leces (Persero) yang telah menjadi harta pailit oleh Kurator yang telah ditunjuk oleh Pengadilan Niaga pada Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya untuk melunasi utangnya kepada para Kreditor. Direksi PT Kertas Leces (Persero) kehilangan hak dan kewenangan untuk mengurus harta pailit tersebut. Karena Negara sebagai pemegang saham mempunyai tanggung jawab terbatas kepada PT Kertas Leces (Persero), kecuali Negara telah melakukan perbuatan piercing the corporate veil, yaitu mencampuradukkan kepentingan perseroan dengan kepentingan pribadi yang diatur dalam Pasal 3 ayat (2) UU No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas sehingga PT Kertas Leces merupakan badan hukum yang memiliki kekayaan sendiri dan terpisah dari kekayaan Negara.

---

ABSTRACTThe focus of this study discusses the results of Judicial Review of the Supreme Court that are unacceptable so that PT Kertas Leces (Persero) is declared bankruptcy situations and business risks caused by Bankruptcy Laws of PT Kertas Leces (Persero). The research method used in this study is normative juridical. The results of this study indicate that due to the cancellation of peace agreement (holomogation) submitted by employees of PT Kertas Leces (Persero), PT Kertas Leces (Persero) was declared bankrupt so it could not be used as a legal aid both an appeal and judicial review to the Supreme Court. When PT Kertas Leces (Persero) was declared bankrupt, the business risk caused was the seizure of all assets of PT Kertas Leces (Persero) that had become bankrupt assets by the Curator appointed by the Commercial Court in the Surabaya to repay the debt to the Creditors. PT Kertas Leces (Persero) lost the rights to conduct and interfere with the bankruptcy assets. Because the State as a shareholder has limited responsible to PT Kertas Leces (Persero), unless the State has pierced the companys headscarves, which is confusing the interests of the company with the personal interests stipulated in Article 3 paragraph (2) of Law Number. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Companies so that PT Kertas Leces is a legal entity that has its own assets separated from the State."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai hak-hak pekerja/buruh akibat pemutusan hubungan kerja dan perlindungan terhadap hak pekerja/buruh dalam putusan pailit. Penulisan ini bersifat deskriptif analitis, karena menggambarkan hak-hak pekerja/buruh akibat perusahaan paillit dan menganalisis hak-hak pekerja/buruh dikaitkan dengan ketentuan yang ada dalam Undang-Undang. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu metode analsis kualitatif yaitu menganalisis aturan yang jelas berdasarkan keterangan ahli dan perlindungan terhadap hak pekerja/buruh akibat putusan pailit. Penelitian ini menganalisis putusan yaitu tanggapan kurator dan pertimbangan hakim dikaitkan dengan Undang-Undang No. 13 Tahun tentang Ketenagakerjaan dan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk memberikan penjelasan mengenai ketentuan hak pekerja/buruh akibat Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja dan mengetahui perlindungan hukum bagi pekerja/buruh dalam putusan no. 31/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2014. Perlindungan terhadap hak pekerja/buruh akibat pemutusan hubungan kerja yang ketentuannya terdapat dalam Pasal 95 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Ketenagakerjaan sudah cukup melindungi hak pekerja/buruh. Akan tetapi, perlindungan terhadap pekerja/buruh dalam putusan no. 31/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2014 belum sepenuhnya melindungi hak pekerja/buruh karena hak-hak upah para pekerja/buruh tidak terpenuhi.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis about the protection of labour rights the concequence termination of employment and the protection of labour rights on cases of bankcrupt. This research is analytis description, because describe about labour rights based on laws. This research uses qualitative methods is analyzed based on rules, testimony of experts and the protection of labour rights. This research analyzing case bankcrupt and response from curator and panel of judges based on Act No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower Indonesia and Act No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts with the Blessings of God Almighthy. The Purpose of this research is to give explanation about the termination of employment and labour rights in cases bankrupt No. 31/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2014/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. Labour right in article 95 paragraph 4 on Act No. 13 of 2003 is enaugh to protect. But, the protecting labour right in cases bankrupt No. 31/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2014/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst is not fulfilled. "

"Salah satu karakterisik dari BUMN adalah modalnya berasal dari pemisahan kekayaan negara. Terdapat perbedaan pengaturan mengenai modal BUMN dengan kedudukannya sebagai kekayaan negara yang berpengaruh pada status kekayaan BUMN dengan bentuk Persero yang menyebabkan perbedaan pandangan hakim dalam kasus kepailitan BUMN Persero. Akibatnya, belum ada BUMN Persero yang status pailitnya dikabulkan oleh hakim dengan dalil bahwa kekayaan BUMN Persero adalah kekayaan negara, sehingga terhadapnya tidak dapat dilakukan penyitaan, akan tetapi tahun 2019 PT Kertas Leces (Persero) menjadi BUMN Persero pertama yang pailit di Indonesia. Tesis ini membahas mengenai bagaimanakah kesesuaian konsep pemisahan harta kekayaan perusahaan dan kekayaan negara dalam BUMN Persero yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara dan pemberesan harta kekayaan BUMN Persero yang dinyatakan pailit. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif yang dianalisa secara kualitatif dengan menggunakan studi dokumen dengan pengumpulan data sekunder. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah konsep pemisahan harta kekayaan perusahaan dan kekayaan negara dalam BUMN Persero yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara tidak sesuai dan terhadap BUMN Persero yang pailit, proses pemberesan harta kekayaannya sama dengan perseroan terbatas sesuai dengan Undang- Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2003 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU dan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas.

---

One of the characteristics of SOE’s is that their capital sourced from the separation of state finances. There are differences in the regulation regarding the capital of SOE’s with their position as state finances that affect the wealth status of SOE’s Persero which causes different views of judges in the case of bankruptcy of SOE Persero. As a result, there has been no SOEs whose bankruptcy status has been granted by the judge with the argument that the assets of SOEs are state finances, so that it cannot be confiscated, but in 2019 PT Kertas Leces (Persero) became the first SOE’s Persero to go bankrupted in Indonesia. This thesis discusses how the concept of separation of company assets and state assets in SOEs Persero is in accordance with Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and Law Number 17 of 2003 concerning State Finances and settlement of assets of BUMN Persero which are declared bankrupted . This study uses a normative method which is analyzed qualitatively by using a document study with secondary data collection. The results of this study are the concept of separation of company assets and state assets in State-Owned Enterprises Persero contained in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and Law Number 17 of 2003 concerning State Finances are not appropriate and for state-owned Persero that is bankrupted, the process of settlement of assets is the same as for a private limited company in accordance with Law Number 37 of 2003 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU and Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

"

"Salah satu karakterisik dari BUMN adalah modalnya berasal dari pemisahan kekayaan negara. Terdapat perbedaan pengaturan mengenai modal BUMN dengan kedudukannya sebagai kekayaan negara yang berpengaruh pada status kekayaan BUMN dengan bentuk Persero yang menyebabkan perbedaan pandangan hakim dalam kasus kepailitan BUMN Persero. Akibatnya, belum ada BUMN Persero yang status pailitnya dikabulkan oleh hakim dengan dalil bahwa kekayaan BUMN Persero adalah kekayaan negara, sehingga terhadapnya tidak dapat dilakukan penyitaan, akan tetapi tahun 2019 PT Kertas Leces (Persero) menjadi BUMN Persero pertama yang pailit di Indonesia. Tesis ini membahas mengenai bagaimanakah kesesuaian konsep pemisahan harta kekayaan perusahaan dan kekayaan negara dalam BUMN Persero yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara dan pemberesan harta kekayaan BUMN Persero yang dinyatakan pailit. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif yang dianalisa secara kualitatif dengan menggunakan studi dokumen dengan pengumpulan data sekunder. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah konsep pemisahan harta kekayaan perusahaan dan kekayaan negara dalam BUMN Persero yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara tidak sesuai dan terhadap BUMN Persero yang pailit, proses pemberesan harta kekayaannya sama dengan perseroan terbatas sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2003 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU dan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas.

---

One of the characteristics of SOE’s is that their capital sourced from the separation of state finances. There are differences in the regulation regarding the capital of SOE’s with their position as state finances that affect the wealth status of SOE’s Persero which causes different views of judges in the case of bankruptcy of SOE Persero. As a result, there has been no SOEs whose bankruptcy status has been granted by the judge with the argument that the assets of SOEs are state finances, so that it cannot be confiscated, but in 2019 PT Kertas Leces (Persero) became the first SOE’s Persero to go bankrupted in Indonesia.

This thesis discusses how the concept of separation of company assets and state assets in SOEs Persero is in accordance with Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and Law Number 17 of 2003 concerning State Finances and settlement of assets of BUMN Persero which are declared bankrupted . This study uses a normative method which is analyzed qualitatively by using a document study with secondary data collection.

The results of this study are the concept of separation of company assets and state assets in State-Owned Enterprises Persero contained in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and Law Number 17 of 2003 concerning State Finances are not appropriate and for state-owned Persero that is bankrupted, the process of settlement of assets is the same as for a private limited company in accordance with Law Number 37 of 2003 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU and Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai kajian perlindungan hukum terhadap hak-hak Pekerja dalam kepailitan sebagaimana diatur dalam UU Ketenagakerjaan dan UU Kepailitan serta menganalisis implementasi perlindungan hukum hak-hak Pekerja dalam kepailitan (studi kasus: PT Omega Primawood (Dalam Pailit). Pokok permasalahan tesis ini adalah mengenai perlindungan hukum terhadap hak?hak Pekerja dalam kepailitan ditinjau dari UU Ketenagakerjaan dan UU Kepailitan dan implementasi perlindungan hukum terhadap hak?hak Pekerja dalam kepailitan (studi kasus: PT Omega Primawood (Dalam Pailit). Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah pendekatan yuridis normatif, sedangkan metode analisis datanya adalah metode kualitatif. Pekerja merupakan bagian dari suatu perusahaan dan juga merupakan salah satu stakeholder/pemangku kepentingan dalam suatu perusahaan. Namun demikian, dalam hal terjadi kepailitan atas perusahaan tempat mereka bekerja, nasib Pekerja sering kali terabaikan. Perlindungan hukum terhadap hak-hak Pekerja dalam kepailitan perseroan adalah melindungi hak-hak dan kepentingan dari para Pekerja selaku stakeholder perseroan, harus memenuhi berbagai ketentuan di dalam peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Kedudukan Pekerja dalam hal kepailitan adalah sebagai Kreditur Preferen, dimana hak-haknya didahulukan. Perlindungan hak Pekerja dalam kepailitan terdapat dalam Pasal 95 ayat 4 UU Ketenagakerjaan jo. Pasal 39 ayat (2) UU Kepailitan. Namun demikian, kedudukan Pekerja sebagai Kreditur Preferen dalam hal kepailitan tidak dapat diartikan sebagai hak yang lebih tinggi dari hak Kreditor Separatis. Sebab, pasal 1134 ayat (2) KUH Perdata juga telah secara tegas juga mengatur sebagai berikut; Gadai dan Hipotik adalah lebih tinggi daripada hak istimewa, kecuali dalam halhal dimana ditentukan oleh undang-undang sebaliknya. Artinya bahwa hak istimewa dari Pekerja adalah untuk mendapatkan pembayaran dari harta-harta Debitor Pailit yang belum dijaminkan. Diharapkan di masa yang akan datang, para pembuat undang-undang menerapkan kewajiban agar pemberi kerja (dalam hal ini adalah Perusahaan) untuk menyediakan suatu asuransi yang dapat melindungi hak-hak Pekerja dalam hal terjadinya kepailitan Perusahaan. Hal ini diperlukan mengingat adanya kemungkinan seluruh aset Perusahaan dijaminkan kepada Kreditur Separatis, dimana dalam hal demikian maka tidak ada lagi aset yang dapat digunakan untuk melaksanakan pembayaran hak-hak Pekerja.

---

This thesis describes the study of legal protection of employee's rights in bankruptcy as stipulated under the Labor Law and Bankruptcy Law as well as to analyze the implementation of the legal protection of employee's rights in bankruptcy (case study: PT Omega Primawood (In Bankruptcy)). Main issues of this thesis are the legal protection of employee's rights in bankruptcy based on Labor Law and Bankruptcy Law and the implementation of the legal protection of employee's rights in bankruptcy (case study: PT Omega Primawood (in Bankruptcy)). The thesis used juridical norms approach as research method and also qualitative data analysis as the analysis method. Employees are part of a company as well as also one of the stakeholders in a company. However, in the event of bankruptcy of its company, the status of employees is often overlooked. Legal protection employees? rights in the company's bankruptcy is to protect the rights and interests of the employees as stakeholders of the company, which shall meet various provisions under the prevailing regulations. The position of workers in the event of bankruptcy is a Preferred Creditor, who has the right to receive preferential treatment among other creditors. Protection of employees? rights in bankruptcy are regulated under Article 95 paragraph (4) Labor Law jo. Article 39 paragraph (2) Bankruptcy Law. However, the position of employees as Preferred Creditor in the event of bankruptcy cannot be interpreted as a higher rank than the right of Secured Creditor. Since Article 1134 paragraph (2) of the Indonesian Civil Code has strongly stated as follows; lien and mortgages are higher than the privilege, with the exception of the circumstances in which the law expressly stipulates otherwise. This means that the privileges of the employees is to obtain payment from the assets of Bankrupt Debtor which have not been secured. It is expected that in the future, the legislators to implement the obligations of the employer (in this case is the Company) to provide an insurance to protect the rights of employees in the event of bankruptcy of the Company. It is necessary since there will always a possibility that the entire assets of the Company were pledged to Secured Creditor, in such case there will be no asset which can be used to carry out the payment of employees? rights."

"Terdapat ketidakjelasan legitima persona standi in judicio BUMN sebagai termohon dalam hukum kepailitan nasional terlebih dengan pailitnya PT Kertas Leces (Persero) yang merupakan kasus kepailitan BUMN permanen pertama di Indonesia dan terjadi akibat lalai menjalankan perjanjian perdamaian dalam PKPU. Penelitian hukum ini menggunakan metode normatif-deskriptif untuk menjelaskan pengaturan legitima persona standi in judicio BUMN dalam perkara permohonan pailit, menjelaskan akibat hukum pengajuan permohonan pembatalan perdamaian dalam PKPU oleh selain Menteri Keuangan terhadap BUMN Persero; dan menganalisis kedudukan PT Kertas Leces (Persero) sebagai termohon dalam perkara No. 1/Pdt.Sus-Pembatalan Perdamaian/2018/PN Niaga Sby. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa legitima persona standi in judicio BUMN selaku termohon dalam perkara permohonan pailit diatur secara khusus pada Pasal 2 ayat (5) UUK PKPU dengan memperhatikan UU BUMN sebagai landasan yuridis kelahiran BUMN yang menunjukkan perbedaan karakteristik alamiah BUMN dengan perusahaan swasta; Akibat hukum atas pengajuan permohonan pembatalan perdamaian dalam PKPU oleh selain Menteri Keuangan terhadap BUMN Persero adalah dilakukan administrasi penerimaan perkara, pemanggilan, dan pemeriksaan dan penjatuhan putusan dengan memperhatikan akibat hukum dikabulkannya permohonan tersebut; Majelis Hakim telah mempertimbangkan Pasal 2 ayat (5) UUK-PKPU namun kurang cermat dalam mempertimbangkan legitima persona standi in judicio PT Kertas Leces (Persero) selaku termohon dalam perkara a quo. Saran dalam penelitian ini meliputi harmonisasi peraturan terkait kedudukan BUMN dalam hukum kepailitan nasional, pengesahan peraturan teknis perkara kepailitan, dan penelitian lanjutan.There is legal uncertainty about the capacity of SOE as the respondent in the national bankruptcy law. This study uses a normative-descriptive method to: describe the legitima persona standi in judicio of SOEs as respondent in bankruptcy petition cases; explaining the legal consequences of submitting a request for cancellation of peace in PKPU towards BUMN Persero by other than the Minister of Finance; and analyze the position of PT Kertas Leces (Persero) as the respondent in case No. 1/Pdt.Sus-Pembatalan Perdamaian/2018/PN Niaga Sby. The results found that the legitima persona standi in judicio of SOEs as the respondent in the bankruptcy petition case is specifically regulated in Article 2 paragraph (5) of the PKPU Law by observing the BUMN Law as a juridical foundation for SOE birth that shows the different natural characteristics of SOEs and private companies; The legal consequences of submitting an application for annulment of peace in PKPU toward BUMN Persero by other than the Minister of Finance are administration of case acceptance, summons, and examination and verdicts with due regard to the legal consequences of the petition being granted; The Panel of Judges has considered Article 2 paragraph (5) of UUK-PKPU but are not careful in considering the legitima persona standi in judicio of PT. Kertas Leces (Persero) as the respondent in the a quo case. Suggestions in this study include harmonization of regulations related to the position of SOEs in national bankruptcy law, ratification of technical regulations on bankruptcy cases, and further research."

"Ketiadaan Perjanjian Kerja dalam bentuk tertulis dapat berakibat pada empat hal yaitu ketidaksepahaman akan berakhirnya masa kerja Pekerja, ketidakpastian akan perlindungan bagi Pekerja, ketidakpastian pemberian upah bagi Pekerja, terjadinya Perselisihan Hak, terjadinya Perselisihan PHK, hingga terjadinya kesulitan-kesulitan pada proses pembuktian di pengadilan dalam hal terjadi Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial. Pada kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 996 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2021, Pekerja menganggap bahwa Hubungan Kerja masih terjalin oleh karena tidak adanya kesalahan yang diperbuatnya dan belum ada persetujuan mengenai PHK, namun Pengusaha menyatakan bahwa PHK yang dilakukan adalah karena telah berakhirnya masa kerja yang merujuk pada dikeluarkannya Surat Pemberitahuan Tidak Diperpanjang Kontrak. Hal ini menunjukan bahwa ketiadaan Perjanjian Kerja dalam bentuk tertulis menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat mengenai berakhirnya masa kerja Pekerja. Tulisan ini menganalisis mengenai bagaimana dampak Perjanjian Kerja tidak tertulis terhadap Hubungan Kerja serta ketentuan dan pemenuhan hak Pekerja berkaitan dengan adanya Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial sebagaimana terjadi di dalam kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 996 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2021. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal dengan tipologi Deskriptif-Analitis yang menggunakan metode analisis data kualitatif dengan data sekunder yang berfokus pada bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder, dan bahan hukum tersier yang didapatkan melalui studi pustaka.

---

The absence of an Employment Agreement in written form can result in four things, namely disagreement regarding the end of the Worker's term of employment, uncertainty regarding protection for the Worker, uncertainty in the payment of wages for the Worker, the occurrence of Rights Disputes, the occurrence of Disputes over Layoffs, and difficulties in the proof process in court in the event of an Industrial Relations Dispute. In the case of the Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court Decision Number 996 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2021, the employee considered that the employment relations was still exist because there were no mistakes had made and there had been no agreement regarding the layoff, but the employer stated that the layoff was carried out because it had ended work period which refers to the issuance of a Notice of Non-Renewal of Contract. This shows that the absence of an Employment Agreement in written form gives rise to differences of opinion regarding the end of the Worker's term of employment. This article analyzes the impact of unwritten Employment Agreements on Employment Relations as well as the provisions and fulfillment of Workers' rights relating to Industrial Relations Disputes as occurred in the case of the Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court Decision Number 996 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2021. This article was prepared using a doctrinal research method with a Descriptive-Analytical typology which uses a qualitative data analysis method with secondary data that focuses on primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials obtained through literature study."

"[ABSTRAKTesis dengan judul Tinjauan Hukum Terhadap Hak PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero)Tbk yang Belum Terpenuhi Selaku Kreditor Pasca Pembagian Boedel Pailit PT. UE ASSA(Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 410 k/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2013) dilatarbelakangi oleh PT. Wijaya Karya yang mengajukan kasasi kepada Mahkamah Agung atasputusan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya Nomor 08/PLW.Pailit/2013/PN.Niaga Sby jo Nomor.07/PKPU/2011/PN Sby tanggal 22 April 2013 karena PT. Wijaya Karya menganggap,bahwa putusan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya tersebut sangat tidak adil oleh karena dalamputusan pailit PT. Wijaya Karya hanya menerima bagian 0,28% dari boedel pailit PT. UEASSA atau sebesar Rp. 2.149.802.062,47 dari seluruh piutang sebesar Rp.112.835.211.143,00. Yang menjadi pokok permasalahan adalah: 1. Bagaimanakahkedudukan tanggungjawab perusahaan beserta seluruh jajaran pengurus PT. UE ASSAdalam melunasi seluruh hutangnya terhadap PT. Wijaya Karya ditinjau dari UU PerseroanTerbatas dan UU Kepailitan? 2. Bagaimanakah upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan olehPT. Wijaya Karya dalam memperoleh seluruh hak yang belum terpenuhi pasca putusanMA Nomor. 410.K/Pdt-Sus.Pailit/2013? Dengan dinyatakan pailit, pengurusan hartakekayaan PT. UE ASSA beralih kepada kurator. Kepailitan PT. UE ASSA pada prinsipnyatidak mengakibatkan PT. UE ASSA kehilangan haknya untuk mengurus dan menguasaiharta kekayaannya dan tidak mengakibatkan terhentinya aktivitas PT. UE ASSA, olehkarena dalam kepailitan PT. UE ASSA kewenangan Direksi beralih kepada kurator yangkemudian dapat bertindak sebagai Direksi untuk mengelola PT. UE ASSA.Pertanggungjawaban PT. UE ASSA merupakan pertanggungjawaban secara timbal balik,sehingga yang dijatuhi putusan pailit adalah perseroannya dan bukan Direksi sepanjangDireksi tidak bertindak melawan hukum. Ada beberapa Upaya hukum yang dapatdilakukan untuk memperoleh seluruh haknya, yaitu PT. Wijaya Karya dapat melakukanupaya: a. Melakukan upaya Peninjauan Kembali dan b. Melakukan upaya actio pauliana.Bentuk penelitian tesis ini adalah yuridis normatif, dengan tipologi penelitian bersifatdeskriptif analitis, jenis data berupa data sekunder, alat pengumpulan data berupa studidokumen, sedangkan pengolahan dan analisis data berdasarkan pendekatan yuridisnormatif.

---

ABSTRACTThesis with the title of the Legal Overview of the Rights PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero) TbkAs Remaining Bankruptcy Creditors Post Boedel division of PT. UE ASSA (Case StudySupreme Court Decision No. 410 k / Pdt.Sus - Bankrupt / 2013 ) against the background byPT. Wijaya Karya who has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision ofSurabaya Commercial Court No. 08 / PLW.Pailit / 2013 / PN.Niaga SBY jo No. 07 / PKPU/ 2011 / PN SBY April 22 of 2013 as PT. Wijaya Karya assume , that the SurabayaCommercial Court decision is very unfair because of the bankruptcy decision PT . WijayaKarya only receive a portion of 0.28 % of boedel bankrupt PT. UE ASSA or Rp.2149802062,47 of all receivables amounting to Rp . 112,835,211,143.00. The main issueare : 1. What is the status of the responsibilities of the company and the whole range of theboard of PT.UE ASSA to repay the entire debt to PT . Wijaya Karya based on the LimitedLiability Company Law and Bankruptcy Law? 2. What is the remedy which can be done byPT. Wijaya Karya in obtaining all the rights that have not been fulfilled after the SupremeCourt decision number. 410.K / Pdt - Sus.Pailit / 2013 ? By declared bankrupt, themaintenance of the assets of PT. UE ASSA switch to the curator. PT. UE ASSA?sbankruptcyin principle does not result in PT. UE ASSA loses its right to administer andcontrol of its assets and did not effect in the cessation of the activity of PT. UE ASSA, sincein the bankruptcy of PT. UE ASSA authority of the Board of Directors switch to the curatorwho can then act as the Board of Directors to manage PT. UE ASSA. Responsibility PT.UE ASSA is a reciprocal responsibility, so the company sentenced for bankruptcy, not theDirectors as long as the Directors did not act unlawfully. There are several legal remediesthat can be done to obtain the rights, PT Wijaya Karya can: a. Conducting a JudicialReview and b. Conducting an actio pauliana. The form of this thesis research is normativejuridical, with typology analytical descriptive study, the type of data in the form ofsecondary data, data collection tools such as the study of documents, while the processingand analysis of data based on a normative juridical approach.;Thesis with the title of the Legal Overview of the Rights PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero) TbkAs Remaining Bankruptcy Creditors Post Boedel division of PT. UE ASSA (Case StudySupreme Court Decision No. 410 k / Pdt.Sus - Bankrupt / 2013 ) against the background byPT. Wijaya Karya who has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision ofSurabaya Commercial Court No. 08 / PLW.Pailit / 2013 / PN.Niaga SBY jo No. 07 / PKPU/ 2011 / PN SBY April 22 of 2013 as PT. Wijaya Karya assume , that the SurabayaCommercial Court decision is very unfair because of the bankruptcy decision PT . WijayaKarya only receive a portion of 0.28 % of boedel bankrupt PT. UE ASSA or Rp.2149802062,47 of all receivables amounting to Rp . 112,835,211,143.00. The main issueare : 1. What is the status of the responsibilities of the company and the whole range of theboard of PT.UE ASSA to repay the entire debt to PT . Wijaya Karya based on the LimitedLiability Company Law and Bankruptcy Law? 2. What is the remedy which can be done byPT. Wijaya Karya in obtaining all the rights that have not been fulfilled after the SupremeCourt decision number. 410.K / Pdt - Sus.Pailit / 2013 ? By declared bankrupt, themaintenance of the assets of PT. UE ASSA switch to the curator. PT. UE ASSA?sbankruptcyin principle does not result in PT. UE ASSA loses its right to administer andcontrol of its assets and did not effect in the cessation of the activity of PT. UE ASSA, sincein the bankruptcy of PT. UE ASSA authority of the Board of Directors switch to the curatorwho can then act as the Board of Directors to manage PT. UE ASSA. Responsibility PT.UE ASSA is a reciprocal responsibility, so the company sentenced for bankruptcy, not theDirectors as long as the Directors did not act unlawfully. There are several legal remediesthat can be done to obtain the rights, PT Wijaya Karya can: a. Conducting a JudicialReview and b. Conducting an actio pauliana. The form of this thesis research is normativejuridical, with typology analytical descriptive study, the type of data in the form ofsecondary data, data collection tools such as the study of documents, while the processingand analysis of data based on a normative juridical approach., Thesis with the title of the Legal Overview of the Rights PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero) TbkAs Remaining Bankruptcy Creditors Post Boedel division of PT. UE ASSA (Case StudySupreme Court Decision No. 410 k / Pdt.Sus - Bankrupt / 2013 ) against the background byPT. Wijaya Karya who has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision ofSurabaya Commercial Court No. 08 / PLW.Pailit / 2013 / PN.Niaga SBY jo No. 07 / PKPU/ 2011 / PN SBY April 22 of 2013 as PT. Wijaya Karya assume , that the SurabayaCommercial Court decision is very unfair because of the bankruptcy decision PT . WijayaKarya only receive a portion of 0.28 % of boedel bankrupt PT. UE ASSA or Rp.2149802062,47 of all receivables amounting to Rp . 112,835,211,143.00. The main issueare : 1. What is the status of the responsibilities of the company and the whole range of theboard of PT.UE ASSA to repay the entire debt to PT . Wijaya Karya based on the LimitedLiability Company Law and Bankruptcy Law? 2. What is the remedy which can be done byPT. Wijaya Karya in obtaining all the rights that have not been fulfilled after the SupremeCourt decision number. 410.K / Pdt - Sus.Pailit / 2013 ? By declared bankrupt, themaintenance of the assets of PT. UE ASSA switch to the curator. PT. UE ASSA’sbankruptcyin principle does not result in PT. UE ASSA loses its right to administer andcontrol of its assets and did not effect in the cessation of the activity of PT. UE ASSA, sincein the bankruptcy of PT. UE ASSA authority of the Board of Directors switch to the curatorwho can then act as the Board of Directors to manage PT. UE ASSA. Responsibility PT.UE ASSA is a reciprocal responsibility, so the company sentenced for bankruptcy, not theDirectors as long as the Directors did not act unlawfully. There are several legal remediesthat can be done to obtain the rights, PT Wijaya Karya can: a. Conducting a JudicialReview and b. Conducting an actio pauliana. The form of this thesis research is normativejuridical, with typology analytical descriptive study, the type of data in the form ofsecondary data, data collection tools such as the study of documents, while the processingand analysis of data based on a normative juridical approach.]"