Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya nomor 72/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby terdapat kreditor yang mengajukan PKPU kepada debitor yang telah terikat dengan homologasi. Permohonan PKPU tersebut dikarenakan kreditur merasa tidak diikutsertakan pada homologasi sebelumnya yaitu perjanjian perdamaian nomor 13/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby. Pada penelitian yang menggunakan metode yuridis-normatif ini, penulis telah mengkaji mengenai penerapan hukum Putusan homologasi dengan mengacu pada Undang- undang nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Berdasarkan penelitian yang telah dilakukan, terbukti bahwa hakim keliru dalam menerapkan hukum pada putusan nomor 72/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby. Hal tersebut dikarenakan pertimbangan hakim dalam mengabulkan PKPU dan mengesahkan Perjanjian Perdamaian pada Perkara no. 72/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby merupakan pertimbangan yang bertentangan dengan beberapa ketentuan seperti pasal 286 UU 37 Tahun 2004, asas naturalia dalam hukum perjanjian, asas peradilan cepat, sederhana dan berbiaya ringan, serta asas Pacta Sunt Servanda sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum. Kreditur yang telah terikat dengan homologasi seharusnya tidak mengajukan PKPU kembali melainkan dapat melakukan upaya yang sesuai dengan ketentuan undang-undang, yaitu dengan mengajukan pembatalan perdamaian ke pengadilan. Oleh karena itu seharusnya terdapat aturan dengan batasan yang lebih jelas dalam hal keberlakuan hukum Perjanjian Perdamaian bagi kreditur demi menghindari kekeliruan dan ketidakpastian hukum.

---

In the Surabaya Commercail Court decision Number 72/Pdf.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby, there are creditor who file a PKPU application to debtor who have been bounded by homologation. The PKPU application was because creditor felt they were not included in the previous homologation, which is the peace agreement number 13/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby. In this research that uses the juridical-normative method, the author has examined the legal implementations of the homologation decision with reference to Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU). Based on the research that has been done, it is proven that the judge was wrong in applying the law to decision number 72/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby. This is due to the judge's considerations in granting the PKPU and homologated the Peace Agreement in Case number 72/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Sby is contradicts to several provisions such as article 286 of Law No. 37 of 2004, the principle of naturalia in contract law, the principle of fast, simple and low-cost justice, and the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda which causing legal uncertainty. Creditors who have been bound by homologation should not apply for a PKPU again but can do a legal efforts that are in accordance with the provisions of the law, which is by submitting an annulment of the peace to the court. Therefore, there should be rules with clearer boundaries in terms of the legal applicability of the Peace Agreement for creditors in order to avoid mistakes and legal uncertainty.