Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas terkait prinsip business judgement rule yang akan memberi perlindungan hukum pimpinan/direksi Operator Investasi Pemerintah dalam pelaksanaan Investasi Pemerintah. Investasi Pemerintah merupakan hal yang baru yang diterapkan di Indonesia berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 63 tahun 2019 tentang Investasi Pemerintah (PP No. 63/2019), yang secara operasional dilaksanakan oleh Operator Investasi Pemerintah (OIP). Dalam menjalankan Investasi Pemerintah, OIP berpotensi menghadapi risiko investasi. untuk melindungi pimpinan/direksi OIP dari pertanggungjawaban hukum atas kerugian tersebut, PP No.63/2019 mengadopsi prinsip business judgement rule. Namun di kalangan aparat penegak hukum maupun hakim prinsip ini tidak sepenuhnya diterapkan. Hal tersebut dapat menghambat tugas OIP dalam melaksanakan tugas Investasi Pemerintah, karena dibayangi ketakutan pertanggungjawaban hukum jika terjadi kerugian. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dimana Penulis melakukan penelaahan terhadap bahan hukum primer berupa peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan hakim. Dari penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa secara normatif PP No.63/2019 yang mengadopsi prinsip business judgement rule seharusnya mampu memberi perlindungan hukum bagi pimpinan/direksi OIP. Penulis menyarankan agar perlindungan hukum tersebut lebih optimal, maka perlu dilakukan hal-hal sebagai berikut: 1) mengatur Investasi Pemerintah dalam bentuk undang-undang; 2) menegaskan dalam regulasi bahwa Investasi Pemerintah masuk ke dalam ranah keuangan privat (untuk mencegah aparat penegak hukum mudah mengkaitkan kerugian investasi dengan kerugian keuangan negara);  dan 3) mensosialisasikan business judgement rule di kalangan aparat penegak hukum dan hakim agar memiliki kesamaan pemahaman. ......This thesis discusses the principles of business judgment rule that will provide legal protection for the leaders/directors of Government Investment Operators in the implementation of Government Investments. Government Investment is a new thing implemented in Indonesia based on Government Regulation Number 63 of 2019 concerning Government Investment (Government Regulation No. 63/2019), which is operationally implemented by Government Investment Operators. In carrying out Government Investment, Government Investment Operators faces investment risk. In order to protect the Government Investment Operators leaders/directors from legal liability for these losses, Government Regulation No. 63/2019 applies the business judgment rule principle. However, among law enforcement officers and judges this principle has not been fully implemented. This can hinder Government Investment Operators 's task in carrying out Government Investment duties, because it is overshadowed by the fear of legal liability in the event of a loss. This study uses a normative juridical method, where the author reviews the primary legal materials in the form of statutory regulations and judges' decisions. From this research, it can be said that normatively Government Regulation No. 63/2019 which applies the business judgment rule principle should be able to provide legal protection for Government Investment Operators leaders/directors. The author suggests that the legal protection is more optimal, it is necessary to do the following things: 1) regulate Government Investment in the form of a law; 2) it is stated in the financial regulations that Government Investment enters the private sphere (to prevent law enforcement officers from easily linking investment losses with state financial losses); and 3) socializing the business judgment rule among law enforcement officers and judges in order to have a common understanding.

Abstrak :
Business Judgement Rule merupakan aturan yang memberikan kekebalan atau perlindungan bagi manajemen perseroan dari setiap tanggung jawab yang lahir sebagai akibat dari transaksi atau kegiatan yang dilakukan olehnya sesuai dengan batas-batas kewenangan dan kekuasaan yang diberikan kepadanya, dengan pertimbangan bahwa kegiatan tersebut telah dilakukan dengan memperhatikan standar kehati-hatian dan itikad baik. Prinsip Businnes Judgment Rule secara implisit diakomodir di dalam Pasal 92 dan Pasal 97 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas yang bertujuan agar melindungi direksi dari upaya kriminalisasi, sehingga asas kepastian hukum terpenuhi.Seharusnya para penegak hukum dapat memilah penyebab yang terjadi dalam kerugian sebuah Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Apabila terjadi kerugian negara yang timbul dalam sebuah Badan Usaha Milik Negara, itu merupakan murni dari resiko bisnis itu sendiri, yang keputusannya diambil yaitu dengan prinsip kehati-hatian dan itikad baik, menurut Penulis, seharusnya dalam penyelesainnya dapat menggunakan prinsip Business Judgment Rule dan dapat dikatakan bukan sebagai suatu tindak pidana korupsi. Hal tersebut terjadi pada kasus perkara Hotasi Nababan, Mantan Direktur Utama PT Merpati Nusantara Airline.Hasil penelitian bentuk pertanggungjawaban direksi dalam perseroan terbatas berdasarkan prinsip business judgement rule adalah pertanggungjawaban baik perdata yang telah diatur dalam Pasal 97 ayat 3 dan 4 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, serta Pasal 1365 KUHPerdata, maupun pertanggungjawaban pidana yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 jo Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. ...... Business Judgement Rule is a rule which provides immunity or protection for the management of the company from any responsibility that is born as a result of a transaction or activity undertaken by him in accordance with the limits of authority and power given to him, considering that these activities have been conducted with respect to the standards prudence and good faith. Judgment Rule Businnes principle implicitly accommodated in Article 92 and Article 97 of Law Number 40 Year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company which aims to protect the directors of the attempt to criminalize, so the principle of legal certainty is met.Supposedly law enforcement officials can sort out the cause of the losses occurring in a State Owned Enterprises. In the event of losses that arise in a State Owned Enterprises, it is purely from the business risk itself, the decision was taken on the principle of prudence and in good faith, according to the author, it should in its solution can make use of Business Judgment Rule and it can be said not as an act of corruption. This happens in the case of case Hotasi Nababan, former Director of PT Merpati Nusantara Airline.The results of the study form of accountability of directors in a limited liability company based on the principles of the business judgment rule is accountable to both civil set out in Article 97 paragraph 3 and 4 of Law Number 40 Year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company, as well as Article 1365 of the Civil Code, as well as criminal liability regulated in Law Number 20 Year 2001 jo Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Nama : Indita Fardhani MalfianProgram Studi : Hukum EkonomiJudul : Penegakan Prinsip Business Judgement Rule Terhadap Keputusan Direksi Perseroan Analisis Kasus Keputusan Pemberian Fasilitas Pembiayaan Pesawat Terbang Kepada PT Mandala Airlines oleh Direksi PT PANN Persero Tesis ini membahas perihal prinsip business judgement rule sebagai suatu prinsip dalam hukum perusahaan yang memberikan perlindungan bagi Direksi atas keputusan bisnis yang tidak dibuatnya secara mandiri. Ditengarai PT PANN Persero merupakan BUMN Persero dengan core business dibidang usaha pembiayaan pengadaan kapal berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah No. 18 Tahun 1974 tentang Penyertaan Modal Negara Republik Indonesia Untuk Pendirian Perseroan Persero Dalam Bidang Pengembangan Armada Niaga Nasional. Suatu Hari Pemerintah RI selaku pemegang saham meminta perseroan untuk melaksanakan pemberian fasilitas pembiayaan pesawat terbang ke sejumlah perusahaan maskapai penerbangan salah satunya yaitu PT Mandala Airlines berdasarkan Surat Menteri Keuangan No. SLA-775/DP3/1994 tanggal 9 November 1994, yang mana tidak sesuai dengan maksud dan tujuan PT sebagaimana tertera dalam PP No. 18/1974 dan Anggaran Dasar PT. Atas kegiatan tersebut, PT PANN Persero mengalami kerugian sebab PT Mandala Airlines sebagai lessee pesawat belum melunasi sebagian besar utangnya atas pembiayaan pesawat terbang sebab gagal melakukan restrukturisasi utang. Jika ditinjau dari sisi PT PANN Persero , kerugian tersebut terjadi bukan dikarenakan Direksi PT PANN Persero telah melanggar prinsip duty of care saat memutuskan untuk melakukan kegiatan pemberian fasilitas pembiayaan pesawat terbang kepada PT Mandala Airlines tersebut. Faktanya, sebelum dan saat dilakukannya proyek ini Direksi sudah menyampaikan fakta-fakta yang ada di perusahaan kepada pemegang saham serta mengingatkan pemegang saham bahwa keputusan Direksi untuk melakukan pengurusan PT berdasarkan prinsip fiduciary duty dalam UUPT harus semata-mata demi kepentingan PT sesuai maksud dan tujuan PT serta memperhatikan ketentuan larangan dan batasan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan serta anggaran dasar PT yang berlaku. Namun, peringatan Direksi tersebut diacuhkan oleh para pemegang saham sehingga Direksi PT PANN Persero disini cuma melaksanakan hal yang telah diamanatkan para pemegang saham tersebut. Berdasarkan alasan ini, Direksi PT PANN Persero seyogyanya berhak memperoleh perlindungan dari tanggung jawab pribadi atas kerugian yang dialami PT melalui prinsip Business Judgement Rule sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 97 ayat 5 UUPT sebab terjadi penyalahgunaan keadaan Misbruik van Omstagdiheden terhadap Direksi PT PANN Persero saat menyetujui pelaksanaan proyek pemberian fasilitas pembiayaan pesawat terbang yang mengakibatkan PT PANN Persero tidak memiliki opsi lain, selain menjalankan amanat Pemerintah RI selaku pemegang saham, walaupun aktivitas tersebut sesungguhnya bertolak belakang dengan core business PT sebagaimana tertera dalam Pasal 2 PP No. 18/1974. Kata Kunci: Direksi, Fiduciary Duty, Business Judgement Rule.

---

ABSTRACT
Name Indita Fardhani MalfianStudy Program Economic LawTitle The Enforcement of Business Judgement Rule Principle Against the Decision of the Board of Directors of the Company Case Analysis of the Decision to Grant Aircraft Financing Facility to PT Mandala Airlines by the Board of Directors of PT PANN Persero This Thesis discusses about the principle of business judgement rule as a principle in Corporate Law which gives a protection to the Board of Directors on business decision which is not made independently by them. PT PANN Persero is a state owned enterprise with core business in the field of ship procurement financing based on Government Regulation No.18 of 1974 regarding Capital Participation of Republic of Indonesia for the Establishment of the Company in the field of National Trade Fleet Development. One day, the Indonesian Government as a shareholder asked the Company to implement the provision of aircraft financing facility to a numerous airline companies one of them is PT Mandala Airlines based on the Letter of Finance Minister No S 524 MK.016 1994 dated 12 July 1994 and Subsidiary Loan Agreement No. SLA 775 DP3 1994 dated 9 November 1994, which does not appropriate with the Company rsquo s purposes and objectives as stated in GR No.18 1974 and Article of Association of the Company. Because of that activity, PT PANN Persero suffered a loss because PT Mandala Airlines as the lessee of the airplane has not paid off most of its debt on aircraft financing because failed to do debt restructuring. If viewed from the side of PT PANN Persero , such loss occurred not because the Board of Directors of PT PANN Persero has violated the principle of duty of care when decided to conduct the aircraft financing facility to PT Mandala Airlines. In fact, before and during this project is implemented the Board of Directors of PT PANN Persero has conveyed the facts that exist in the company to the shareholder as well as reminded them that the decision of The Board of Directors to perform the management of the Company based on the fiduciary duty principle in the Company Law must be solely for the interests of the Company pursuant to its purposes and objectives as well as notice the provisions of prohibitions and restrictions in the applicable regulations and Article of Association of the Company. However, such warnings are ignored by the shareholders so that the Board of Directors of PT PANN Persero here only did what has been mandated by the Company rsquo s shareholders. Based on that reason, the Board of Directors of PT PANN Persero should be entitled to get protection from personal responsibility through the business judgement rule principle as regulated in Article 97 paragraph 5 of the Company Law for losses suffered by the company because there is a misuse of circumstances Misbruik van Omstagdigheden against the Board of Directors of PT PANN Persero when approved the execution of granting aircraft financing facility which resulted PT PANN Persero having no other options, besides carried out the mandate of the Government of Republic of Indonesia as a shareholder, though such activity in fact is contrary to the Company rsquo s core business as stated in Article 2 of GR No.18 1974. Keywords Board of Directors, Fiduciary Duty, Business Judgement Rule.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Luasnya lingkup keuangan Negara berpotensi menyebabkan pemahaman kerugianBUMN merupakan tindak pidana korupsi. Menurut teori transformasi kekayaan Negarapenyertaan modal negara pada BUMN telah bertransformasi menjadi kekayaan BUMN.PT PLN Persero sebagai perseroan terbatas memberlakukan ketentuan Undang-UndangNomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas termasuk prinsip Business JudgementRule dalam Pasal 97 sebagai perlindungan hukum atas pertanggungjawaban keputusanbisnis yang mengakibatkan kerugian perusahaan. Suatu ukuran Business Judgment Ruleadalah kerugian yang timbul bukan karena kesalahan/kelalaian direksi, direksi beritikadbaik dan penuh kehati-hatian untuk kepentingan dan tujuan Perseroan, tidak memilikibenturan kepentingan dan telah mengambil tindakan mencegah timbul atau berlanjutnyakerugian. Penelitian hukum yuridis normatif ini dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan danwawancara. Direksi PT PLN Persero berusaha konsisten menjalankan prinsip BusinessJudgement Rule sejak tahap perencanaan pengadaan hingga manajemen aset denganmengacu pada ketentuan Anggaran Dasar, batasan kewenangan, Board of Manual,ketentuan yang berlaku dan mengadopsi good procurements yaitu mengimplementasikanPendekatan strategis, Fokus Value for Money, Organisasi, Kultur Profesionalisme danPengendalian Risiko. Pengambilan keputusan/kebijakan korporasi dilengkapi denganjustifikasi. Apabila terdapat indikasi kerugian pada pengadaan barang dan jasa di PTPLN Persero untuk penyelesaian permasalahan hukumnya sebaiknya ditinjau terlebihdahulu berdasarkan Hukum Perdata dan Hukum Administrasi. PertanggungjawabanHukum Pidana seharusnya menjadi ultimum remidium atau sarana terakhir yangditerapkan.

---

ABSTRACT
The widespread scope of a state rsquo s financial has the potential to cause the financial loss inrelated to BUMN state owned enterprises to be the kind of of criminal acts of corruption.Whereas according to the theory of transformation of state assets, the partial state rsquo s capital inBUMN has transformed to become the asset of BUMN. Considering that PT PLN Stateowned electricity company is a limited liabilty company, in running their routine activity,therefore,they apply the provisions of Law No. 40 Tahun 2007 on limited liability companyinclusive of Business Judgement Rule principle in article 97 that constitutes legal protectionover the accountability of the funds in each and every business rsquo decision that results in a lossof the company. A measure of Business Judgement Rule is the loss that does not occurbecause of the fault the board of directors, in fact, they have good intentions and conductcarefully according the benefit and objective of the company, does not have personal interest,and has taken actions to prevent the occurrence or continuity of the loss. Business JudgementRule must be applied in the process first started in the pre decision, the decision phase, up tothe post phase decision. This normative legal research method is used literature study andinterviews. The boards of directors of PT PLN Persero have consistenly conducted theprinciple of Business Judgement Rule started in the planning phase of procurement of goodsand services up to management assets based on The Articles Of Association, provisions ofauthority constraints Board of Manual of Director and Commissioners Indonesian law regulations, adopting good procurements by applying a Strategic Approach, Value focus forMoney, and Profesionalism Organization, Professionalism Culture and Risk Control. Everydecision or corporate policies shall be conducted with any justification. If there is any loss damage indication in many of the procurement of goods and services in reinsurance in PTPLN Persero , the settlement of the lawsuit should be reviewed beforehand based on civillaw and through the administrative law. The accountability reports on the criminal law aresupposed to be the ultimum remidium or the last facility applied.

Abstrak :

Dalam arti yang lebih kompleks sekaligus sederhana, abuse (abnormal use) of power dapat dimaknai sebagai sebuah akibat dari gagalnya pengendalian internal (internal control). Di dalam industri perbankan sendiri, prinsip kehati-hatian (prudential principle) merupakan patokan utama dalam pembentukan dan pemeliharaan hubungan antara Bank dengan masyarakat. Kendati direksi dan komisaris memikul tanggungjawab hukum dengan porsinya masing-masing, namun terdapat batasan-batasan tertentu mengenai kapan direksi dan komisaris tidak dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban atas risiko dari keputusan atau tindakan pengawasan yang telah diambilnya. Dengan demikian direksi dan komisaris dapat lebih leluasa dalam mengambil keputusan bisnis maupun aksi-aksi korporasi dalam kegiatan usaha perbankan. Namun pada praktiknya, ketika dihadapkan pada kasus dugaan kejahatan perbankan, Majelis Hakim tidak selalu mempergunakan konsep Business Judgement Rule (BJR) sebagai  immunity doctrine bagi direksi untuk menangkis tuduhan White Collar Crime yang ditujukan atas keputusan atau tindakan pengawasan yang telah dilakukan oleh direksi dan komisaris. Hal ini menyebabkan kesenjakan antara das sein dengan das solen. Sehingga disini diperlukan sebuah penelitian dalam bentuk tesis, dengan identifikasi masalah yaitu; Pertama, Bagaimana penerapan Prudential Principle dalam pemberian kredit di Indonesia?. Kedua, Bagaimana penerapan prinsip Business Judgement Rule dalam memeriksa dan memutus kasus dugaan tindak pidana perbankan di Indonesia?  

Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif, dengan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitis.

Dari hasil penelitian ini diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa ketika keputusan atau tindakan pengawasan yang dilakukan oleh direksi dan komisaris tersebut telah didasari iktikad baik (good faith), pengambilan keputusan telah memperhatikan kepentingan perusahaan (fiduciary duty), berdasarkan pengetahuan/data yang memadai (informed basis), tidak dilakukan untuk berhambur-hambur (duty of care) dan tidak didasarkan pada kepentingan pribadi (loyalty), serta penuh dengan tanggungjawab, maka seharusnya Direksi berhak atas immunity doctrine.

 

---

In a more complex and at the same time simple, abnormal use of power can be interpreted as a result of the failure of internal control. Within the banking industry itself, the principle of prudence is the main benchmark in the formation and maintenance of relations between the Bank and the public. However, in practice, when faced with cases of suspected banking crime, the Panel of Judges does not always use the concept of the Business Judgment Rule as the immunity doctrine for the directors to fend off alleged criminal acts aimed at decisions or supervisory actions that have been carried out by the board of directors and commissioners. This causes a gap between them. So that we need a research in the form of a thesis, with problem identification; First, how is the application of the precautionary principle in lending in Indonesia? Second, how is the application of BJR principles in examining and deciding cases of suspected banking crime in Indonesia?

The research method used is a normative juridical research method, with descriptive analytical research specifications.

From the results of this study, it is concluded that when the decisions or supervisory actions taken by the directors and commissioners are based on good faith, have taken into account the interests of the company, are based on adequate knowledge / data, are not wasting and are not on personal interests, and are full of responsibility, then BJR can be applied.

Abstrak :

Dalam arti yang lebih kompleks sekaligus sederhana, abuse (abnormal use) of power dapat dimaknai sebagai sebuah akibat dari gagalnya pengendalian internal (internal control). Di dalam industri perbankan sendiri, prinsip kehati-hatian (prudential principle) merupakan patokan utama dalam pembentukan dan pemeliharaan hubungan antara Bank dengan masyarakat. Kendati direksi dan komisaris memikul tanggungjawab hukum dengan porsinya masing-masing, namun terdapat batasan-batasan tertentu mengenai kapan direksi dan komisaris tidak dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban atas risiko dari keputusan atau tindakan pengawasan yang telah diambilnya. Dengan demikian direksi dan komisaris dapat lebih leluasa dalam mengambil keputusan bisnis maupun aksi-aksi korporasi dalam kegiatan usaha perbankan. Namun pada praktiknya, ketika dihadapkan pada kasus dugaan kejahatan perbankan, Majelis Hakim tidak selalu mempergunakan konsep Business Judgement Rule (BJR) sebagai  immunity doctrine bagi direksi untuk menangkis tuduhan White Collar Crime yang ditujukan atas keputusan atau tindakan pengawasan yang telah dilakukan oleh direksi dan komisaris. Hal ini menyebabkan kesenjakan antara das sein dengan das solen. Sehingga disini diperlukan sebuah penelitian dalam bentuk tesis, dengan identifikasi masalah yaitu; Pertama, Bagaimana penerapan Prudential Principle dalam pemberian kredit di Indonesia?. Kedua, Bagaimana penerapan prinsip Business Judgement Rule dalam memeriksa dan memutus kasus dugaan tindak pidana perbankan di Indonesia?  

Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif, dengan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitis.

Dari hasil penelitian ini diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa ketika keputusan atau tindakan pengawasan yang dilakukan oleh direksi dan komisaris tersebut telah didasari iktikad baik (good faith), pengambilan keputusan telah memperhatikan kepentingan perusahaan (fiduciary duty), berdasarkan pengetahuan/data yang memadai (informed basis), tidak dilakukan untuk berhambur-hambur (duty of care) dan tidak didasarkan pada kepentingan pribadi (loyalty), serta penuh dengan tanggungjawab, maka seharusnya Direksi berhak atas immunity doctrine.

 

---

In a more complex and at the same time simple, abnormal use of power can be interpreted as a result of the failure of internal control. Within the banking industry itself, the principle of prudence is the main benchmark in the formation and maintenance of relations between the Bank and the public. However, in practice, when faced with cases of suspected banking crime, the Panel of Judges does not always use the concept of the Business Judgment Rule as the immunity doctrine for the directors to fend off alleged criminal acts aimed at decisions or supervisory actions that have been carried out by the board of directors and commissioners. This causes a gap between them. So that we need a research in the form of a thesis, with problem identification; First, how is the application of the precautionary principle in lending in Indonesia? Second, how is the application of BJR principles in examining and deciding cases of suspected banking crime in Indonesia?

The research method used is a normative juridical research method, with descriptive analytical research specifications.

From the results of this study, it is concluded that when the decisions or supervisory actions taken by the directors and commissioners are based on good faith, have taken into account the interests of the company, are based on adequate knowledge / data, are not wasting and are not on personal interests, and are full of responsibility, then BJR can be applied.

 

Abstrak :
Penelitian tesis ini difokuskan pada penilaian penyalahgunaan kewenangan serta penerapan Doktrin Corporate Law dalam menganalisis kasus Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Bentuk peneliitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis-normatif dan menggunakan tipologi penelitian eksplanatoris. Hasil penelitiannya adalah dalam menjalankan Perusahaan Direktur Badan Usaha Milik Negara telah terikat dalam berbagai aturan melalui Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas juga diatur dalam Undang-Undang No. 19 Tahun 2003 Tentang Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Direksi dalam menjalankan pengurusan di Perseroan wajib melaksanakan dengan penuh itikad baik dan tanggung jawab sesuai tujuan Perseroan. Doktrin-Doktrin Corporate Law telah memberikan pengaturan yang menjadi kewajiban dan larangan atas kepengurusan Perseroan. Penyimpangan terhadap penerapan Doktrin Corporate Law dalam Perseoan BUMN menjadi parameter dalam menentukan kesalahan Direksi yang bisa diukur dari, Doktrin Fiduciary duty, Doktrin businnes judgment rule, Doktrin ultra vires dan Doktrin Piercing the Corporate Veil. Disamping itu juga bahwa perlu diperjelas kedudukan dan status kekayaan BUMN itu terpisah dari kekayaan Negara dalam UU yang terkait satu dengan yang lain, kemudian penilaian atas kerugian harus dilakukan seproposional mungkin guna menghindari disorder of law dan memastika keadilan bisa tercapai sesuai dengan yang semestinya serta penting kedepanya doktrin-doktrin tersebut harus diperkuat dan diadopsi dalam setiap sendi-sendi aturan hukum Negara untuk dijadikan dasar paradigmatik untuk menyelesaikan persoalan dalam pengelolaan perusahaan ......This thesis research is focused on the assessment of abuse of authority and the application of Corporate Law Doctrine in analyzing the case of State-Owned Enterprises. The form of research used is juridical-normative and uses an explanatory research typology. The result of the research is that in running the Company the Director of State-Owned Enterprises has been bound by various rules through Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies is also regulated in Law no. 19 of 2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises. The Board of Directors in carrying out management in the Company is required to carry out in full good faith and responsibility in accordance with the objectives of the Company. The doctrines of Corporate Law have provided regulations that are obligations and prohibitions on the management of the Company. Deviations from the application of the Corporate Law Doctrine in SOEs are a parameter in determining the errors of the Board of Directors which can be measured from the Fiduciary dutyDoctrine, the Business Judgment Rule Doctrine, Ultra Vires Doctrine and the Piercing the Corporate Veil Doctrine. Besides that, it is also necessary to clarify the position and status of BUMN assets separately from state assets in laws that are related to one another, then an assessment of losses must be carried out as proportionally as possible in order to avoid disorder of law and ensure justice can be achieved in accordance with what should be and is important in the future. these doctrines must be strengthened and adopted in every joint of the rule of state law to be used as a paradigmatic basis for solving problems in company management

Abstrak :
Ada dua pertanyaan dasar yang diuraikan dalam tulisan ini. Pertama, bagaimana pelaksanaan kewenangan Direksi dalam batasan doktrin "duty of care" dan "business judgement rule" Kedua, bagaimana penerapan "duty of care" dan "business judgment rule" dalam perkara No. 428/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST? Metode penelitian yang dipakai adalah penelitian normatif dengan menggunakan tiga pendekatan, yakni doktrinal, perundang-undangan dan kasus. Kesimpulan dari tulisan ini, yakni, pertama, doktrin duty of care merupakan dasar berlakunya doktrin "business judgment rule". Direksi mendapat perlindungan hukum berdasarkan teori "business judgment rule" apabila "duty of care" terpenuhi. Kedua, doktrin "duty of care" dan "business judgment rule" terpenuhi dalam putusan perkara No. 428/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST. Penulis menyarankan agar undang-undang perseroan terbatas perlu membuat ketentuan secara tegas tentang standar kehatihatian dan standar adanya itikad baik dalam mengurus perseroan. ...... There are two main questions that explained in this research. First, how is the implementation of the authority of the Board of Directors in the frame of the doctrine ?duty of care? and "business judgment rule" Second, how is the implementation of doctrine ?duty of care? and "business judgment rule" in case No. 428/PDT.G/G/2013/PN.JKT.PST. The research method used in this writing is normative research method with three approaches: doctrinal, legislation, case. There are two conclusions that the researcher found from the research in this writing: First, the "duty of care" doctrine is the basic concept to implement the doctrine "business judgment rule". The board of director can get the legal protection based on the theory "business judgment rule" if the doctrine duty of care is fulfilled. Second, doctrine duty of care and business judgment rule is fulfilled in case No. 428/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST. The researcher suggests that the legislation of Limited Liability Company (Ltd.) need to make the clear and assertive provision about the standard of circumspection and the standard of good intention from the Board of Director in managing the company.