[
ABSTRAKPeranan Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) sangat dibutuhkan dalam
penyelenggaraan perekonomian nasional. Di samping memberikan kontribusi
kepada penerimaan Negara dalam bentuk dividen, BUMN juga mempunyai
peranan strategis lain yaitu menghasilkan barang dan/atau jasa kepada
masyarakat, pelopor sektor usaha yang yang belum diminati swasta, pelaksana
pelayanan publik, penyeimbang kekuatan swasta juga turut mengembangkan
usaha kecil/koperasi. Sebagai pengurus BUMN Perseroan, direksi memegang
peranan yang sangat penting agar tujuan pendirian BUMN tercapai. Dalam
mengurus perseroan, direksi harus mengambil berbagai keputusan bisnis yang
memiliki risiko. Salah satu risiko yang mungkin terjadi adalah keputusan bisnis
yang diambilnya merugikan perseroan. Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007
tentang Perseroan Terbatas memberikan perlindungan hukum kepada para direksi
perseroan terbatas karena telah mengakomodasi doktrin fiduciary duty dan
business judgment rule. Prinsip ini seharusnya juga berlaku di BUMN perseroan
karena BUMN perseroan juga tunduk kepada prinsip-prinsip perseroan terbatas
sebagaimana diatur dalam UU PT dan UU BUMN. Ada dua masalah yang
dianalisis menyangkut penerapan kedua doktrin tersebut dalam BUMN perseroan
yaitu : bagaimana doktrin fiduciary duty dan business judgment rule yang berasal
dari common law principles diserap dalam UU PT dan UU BUMN dan bagaimana
penerapan doktrin tersebut dapat digunakan sebagai pembelaan diri direktur
BUMN perseroan yang didakwa merugikan keuangan negara dalam perkara
tindak pidana korupsi. Dari hasil penelitian yang dilakukan dapat disimpulkan
bahwa business judgment rule dalam UU PT berlaku sebagai standar of review.
Unsur-unsur dalam business judgment rule diserap dalam UU PT ke dalam
beberapa kualifikasi. Pembelaan diri sebagaimana kualifikasi tersebut bersifat
kumulatif. Keberlakuan business judgment rule untuk direksi BUMN perseroan
mengalami pergeseran dari wilayah hukum privat menjadi wilayah hukum publik
karena definisi keuangan negara di pasal 2 dan 3 UU Pemberantasan Tindak
Pidana Korupsi. Penerapan business judgment rule harus dilihat kasus demi kasus.
Karena kualifikasi yang diserap dalam UU PT tidak secara jelas didefinisikan
maka interpretasinya tergantung kepada pengetahuan hakim. Untuk itu perlu
dilakukan sinkronisasi peraturan perundangan yang berkaitan dengan pengertian
keuangan negara dan agar dilakukan kejelasan atas kualifikasi business judgment
rule untuk meminimalkan perbedaan interpretasi hakim.
ABSTRACTState-Owned Limited Liability Enterprise (SOE) has a very important
role in developing national economic. In addition to give money to the state
receipts inthe form of dividends, SOE has strategic roles in making public
goods andservices, pioneer in some business sectors, a counterweight private
power also developing small business. The SOE?s board of directors holds a
very important role to make sure that the purpose of SOE is achieved.In
proposing the company, the board of directors shall take a variety of the
business decision that bearing a risks. One of the risk that might happen to the
business of his detrimental to the company. Law No.40/2007 on Limited
Liability Company give a legal protection by accommodating the fiduciary duty
and business judgment rule doctrines. Theseprinciples should also apply in SOE
due to SOE is subject on limited liability company law. There are two
problems concerning the application of that doctrines on SOE?s : how the
doctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule comes from common law
principles were absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Company
and Law No.19/2003 on SOE? How the application of these doctrines can be
used as self defense of SOE?s Director that charged in corruptioncase? From the
research, we can concluded that the doctrines of fiduciary duty and business
judgment rule we absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company
and Law No.19/2003 on SOE. Business judgment rule doctrine was absorbed
into several qualifications as a standard of review and it is a cumulative review.
The application of that two doctrines to the SOE?s board of directors wereshifting
from the area of private law to the public law area due to the definition of
financial state scope according to article number 2 and 3 of the Law No.31/1999
jo Law No.20/2001 on Corruption Eradication. The application of business
judgment rule should be seen a case by case. Because of qualifications that
absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company wew not clearly
defined, its interpretation depends on judge?s understanding. So, we need a
synchronization of all legislation that related to the definition of financial state
scope and we also need to clarity on qualifications to do business judgment rule in
order to minimize the difference between judge?s interpretation.;State-Owned Limited Liability Enterprise (SOE) has a very important
role in developing national economic. In addition to give money to the state
receipts inthe form of dividends, SOE has strategic roles in making public
goods andservices, pioneer in some business sectors, a counterweight private
power also developing small business. The SOE’s board of directors holds a
very important role to make sure that the purpose of SOE is achieved.In
proposing the company, the board of directors shall take a variety of the
business decision that bearing a risks. One of the risk that might happen to the
business of his detrimental to the company. Law No.40/2007 on Limited
Liability Company give a legal protection by accommodating the fiduciary duty
and business judgment rule doctrines. Theseprinciples should also apply in SOE
due to SOE is subject on limited liability company law. There are two
problems concerning the application of that doctrines on SOE’s : how the
doctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule comes from common law
principles were absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Company
and Law No.19/2003 on SOE? How the application of these doctrines can be
used as self defense of SOE’s Director that charged in corruptioncase? From the
research, we can concluded that the doctrines of fiduciary duty and business
judgment rule we absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company
and Law No.19/2003 on SOE. Business judgment rule doctrine was absorbed
into several qualifications as a standard of review and it is a cumulative review.
The application of that two doctrines to the SOE’s board of directors wereshifting
from the area of private law to the public law area due to the definition of
financial state scope according to article number 2 and 3 of the Law No.31/1999
jo Law No.20/2001 on Corruption Eradication. The application of business
judgment rule should be seen a case by case. Because of qualifications that
absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company wew not clearly
defined, its interpretation depends on judge’s understanding. So, we need a
synchronization of all legislation that related to the definition of financial state
scope and we also need to clarity on qualifications to do business judgment rule in
order to minimize the difference between judge’s interpretation., State-Owned Limited Liability Enterprise (SOE) has a very important
role in developing national economic. In addition to give money to the state
receipts inthe form of dividends, SOE has strategic roles in making public
goods andservices, pioneer in some business sectors, a counterweight private
power also developing small business. The SOE’s board of directors holds a
very important role to make sure that the purpose of SOE is achieved.In
proposing the company, the board of directors shall take a variety of the
business decision that bearing a risks. One of the risk that might happen to the
business of his detrimental to the company. Law No.40/2007 on Limited
Liability Company give a legal protection by accommodating the fiduciary duty
and business judgment rule doctrines. Theseprinciples should also apply in SOE
due to SOE is subject on limited liability company law. There are two
problems concerning the application of that doctrines on SOE’s : how the
doctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule comes from common law
principles were absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Company
and Law No.19/2003 on SOE? How the application of these doctrines can be
used as self defense of SOE’s Director that charged in corruptioncase? From the
research, we can concluded that the doctrines of fiduciary duty and business
judgment rule we absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company
and Law No.19/2003 on SOE. Business judgment rule doctrine was absorbed
into several qualifications as a standard of review and it is a cumulative review.
The application of that two doctrines to the SOE’s board of directors wereshifting
from the area of private law to the public law area due to the definition of
financial state scope according to article number 2 and 3 of the Law No.31/1999
jo Law No.20/2001 on Corruption Eradication. The application of business
judgment rule should be seen a case by case. Because of qualifications that
absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company wew not clearly
defined, its interpretation depends on judge’s understanding. So, we need a
synchronization of all legislation that related to the definition of financial state
scope and we also need to clarity on qualifications to do business judgment rule in
order to minimize the difference between judge’s interpretation.]
T41785-Agustina Arumsari.pdf :: Unduh