Dalam perkara kepailitan, debitor dapat mengajukan rencana perdamaian baikmelalui Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) ataupun perdamaiansetelah putusan pailit dijatuhkan. Dalam hal rencana perdamaian diajukan melaluiPKPU, maka setelah perdamaian tersebut disetujui dan dihomologasi olehPengadilan Niaga maka putusan homologasi mengikat semua kreditor kecualikreditor separatis dan terhadap kreditor separatis tersebut diberikan kompensasisebesar nilai terendah di antara nilai jaminan atau nilai aktual pinjaman yang secaralangsung dijamin dengan hak agunan atas kebendaan sebagaimana diatur dalamPasal 286 UUK-PKPU. Selama PKPU berlangsung, debitor tidak dapatdimohonkan pailit. Hal ini berdasarkan Pasal 260 UUK-PKPU. Dengan demikian,selama debitor beritikad baik melaksanakan isi perdamaian dalam putusanhomologasi seharusnya debitor dilindungi dari kepailitan kecuali debitor lalaidalam memenuhi isi perdamaian. Jika hal yang demikian terjadi, kreditor dapatmenuntut pembatalan perdamaian yang mengakibatkan debitor seketika dinyatakanpailit. Dalam praktik, terdapat 2 (dua) putusan pengadilan yang saling bertentangandan menimbulkan akibat hukum yang berbeda terhadap debitor yang sama yaituputusan homologasi dan putusan pernyataan pailit. Hal ini menjadi permasalahanyang hendak dikaji dalam penelitian ini yaitu pelaksanaan putusan homologasidengan dikabulkannya putusan pernyataan pailit terhadap debitor yang sama. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif terhadap kasus kepailitan PT Siak Raya Timber.

---

In a bankruptcy case, the debtor can propose a composition plan either by the suspension of payment or accord after the bankruptcy order granted. If the composition plan is submitted through suspension of payment, the plan will then be approved and be homologated by the Commercial Court. The homologation decision binds debtor and all creditors except the separatist creditors, in which compensation with the lowest value between the collateral value or the actual value

of the loan that is directly guaranteed by collateral rights as regulated in Article 286

Indonesian Bankruptcy Act will be given. Based on Article 260 Indonesian Bankruptcy Act, the debtor cannot be filed for bankruptcy during the suspension of payment. Therefore, as long as the debtor acting in good faith executing the accord based on the homologation decision, the debtor should be protected from bankruptcy. If the debtor fails to fulfill the accord based on the homologation decision, the creditor can demand a cancellation of the accord which causes the debtor to be declared bankrupt immediately. In practice, two court decisions contradict each other and lead to different legal consequences against the same debtor, namely the homologation decision and the bankruptcy order. This is an issue that will be examined in this study, which is the execution of the suspension of payment’s homologation decisions with the granting of a bankruptcy order against the same debtor. This study uses normative juridical methods on the bankruptcy case of PT Siak Raya Timber.