Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas tanggung jawab direksi perseroan terbatas dalam pembuatan dan pelaksanaan perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu dengan tenaga kerja, Berdasar Undang-undang Nomor. 40 Tahun 2007, tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2003, tentang Ketenagakerjaan. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, sehingga penelitian ini berbasis pada analisis terhadap norma hukum, baik hukum dalam arti peraturan perundang- undangan, maupun hukum dalam arti putusan pengadilan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa dalam pembuatan perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu perlu diperhatikan pihak yang berwenang menandatangani perjanjian itu; Hanya yang berwenang yang boleh menandatangani surat perjanjian; perlu adanya peran aktif pemerintah untuk mengawasi pelaksanaan perjanjian ini; dan perlu dibentuk lembaga pengawas perjanjian kerja yang independen.

---

This thesis discusses the responsibilities of directors in making the limited implementation of the agreement and work with a certain time of labor, By Tax Act. 40 In 2007, the Limited Company and Act No. 13 in 2003, on Employment. This research is a qualitative research method using a normative juridical research, so this research is based on the analysis of legal norms, both in terms of legal regulations, and law in the sense that the court decision. Results of research suggest that in making the agreement work time needs to the authorities that sign the agreement; Only authorized personnel should sign the agreement; need the active role of the government to oversee the implementation of this agreement, and supervisory agencies need to be agreement that the independent work."

"Tesis ini membahas tanggung jawab direksi perseroan terbatas dalam pembuatan dan pelaksanaan perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu dengan tenaga kerja, Berdasar Undang-undang Nomor. 40 Tahun 2007, tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2003, tentang Ketenagakerjaan. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, sehingga penelitian ini berbasis pada analisis terhadap norma hukum, baik hukum dalam arti peraturan perundang- undangan, maupun hukum dalam arti putusan pengadilan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa dalam pembuatan perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu perlu diperhatikan pihak yang berwenang menandatangani perjanjian itu; Hanya yang berwenang yang boleh menandatangani surat perjanjian; perlu adanya peran aktif pemerintah untuk mengawasi pelaksanaan perjanjian ini; dan perlu dibentuk lembaga pengawas perjanjian kerja yang independen.

---

This thesis discusses the responsibilities of directors in making the limited implementation of the agreement and work with a certain time of labor, By Tax Act. 40 In 2007, the Limited Company and Act No. 13 in 2003, on Employment. This research is a qualitative research method using a normative juridical research, so this research is based on the analysis of legal norms, both in terms of legal regulations, and law in the sense that the court decision. Results of research suggest that in making the agreement work time needs to the authorities that sign the agreement; Only authorized personnel should sign the agreement; need the active role of the government to oversee the implementation of this agreement, and supervisory agencies need to be agreement that the independent work."

"[ABSTRAKUndang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan.Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

---

ABSTRACTAct No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]"

"Perseroan merupakan salah satu bentuk badan usaha, yang dibentuk untuk melakukan usaha semata-mata guna mencari keuntungan yang nantinya akan dibagikan dalam bentuk dividen kepada para pemegang saham yang telah sebelumnya menyisihkan sebagian harta mereka, untuk menjadi harta milik perseroan. Sebagai badan hukum, perseroan mempunyai hak dan kewajiban dalam masyarakat, dan dalam hal perseroan tidak melaksanakan tanggung jawabnya seusai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, baik yang berhubungan dengan lingkungan hidup, masyarakat dan lingkungan sekitarnya maka akan terjadi benturan-benturan kepentingan dengan para pemangku kepentingan perseroan seperti pemerintah, komunitas sekitar, lembaga swadaya masyarakat dan masyarakat luas, dan terjadinya masalah sosial dan kerusakan lingkungan hidup, yang pada gilirannya menimbulkan berbagai masalah bagi pemerintah, masyarakat, lingkungan dan yang pasti bagi perseroan itu sendiri. Sebenarnya tidak ada perseroan yang dapat mempunyai usaha yang berkesinambungan ditengah-tengah masyarakat yang miskin, serta lingkungan hidup yang rusak, karena perseroan hanya dapat berkembang dengan baik dan memperoleh keuntungan yang memadai apabila masyarakat di mana perseroan itu berada juga berkembang, dan untuk berkembangnya masyarakat diperlukan adanya lingkungan hidup dan keadaan ekonomi yang baik dan berkembang. Undang-Undang nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas mengatur mengenai tanggung jawab sosial dan lingkungan dalam pasal 74, yang mengatur bahwa perseroan yang menjalankan kegiatan usahanya di bidang dan/atau berkaitan dengan sumber daya alam wajib melaksanakan tanggung jawab sosial dan lingkungan, merupakan peraturan pertama didunia yang mewajibkan tanggung jawab sosial dan lingkungan, yang mungkin dimaksudkan oleh pembentuk undang-undang sebagai kepatuhan terhadap peraturan peraturan perundangan-undangan yang ada. Pengertian tanggung jawab sosial yang dimengerti di negara lain adalah melakukan hal yang baik bagi masyarakat melebihi kepatuhan terhadap peraturan yang berlaku yang berkaitan dengan aspek lingkungan, ekonomi dan sosial masyarakat. Penulis membahas "Creating Shared Value" suatu konsep yang berbeda dengan tanggung jawab sosial perseroan atau "Corporate Social Responsibility" dan pelaksanaannya oleh PT Nestlé Indonesia.

---

A limited liability company is one of the forms of business entities, established solely to make profit which will be paid as dividend to its shareholders who have put aside part of their assets to become the asset of the formed limited liability company. As a legal body, a limited liability company has its rights and obligation in the society, and in the event that a limited liability company does not perform its responsibility in line with the prevailing laws and regulations relating to the environment, society and surrounding communities, conflicts of interest will occur with its stakeholders such as the government, surrounding community, non government organizations and the society at large. The occurrence of social problem and environmental destruction will cause problems to the government, society, community and for sure to the limited liability company itself. In fact, no limited liability company can have a sustained business in a poor society and damaged environment, since a limited liability company can only develop and gain sufficient profit if the society in which it exists has also developed well, and for the society to develop well it requires sustained environmental and good economic conditions. Law number 40 year 2007 on Limited Liability Company has introduced the concept of social and environmental responsibilities in its article 74, which stipulates that any limited liability company having its business undertakings in and/or relating to natural resources, is obliged to implement social and environmental responsibilities. This is the first law in the world that obliges social and environmental responsibilities, which might be intended by the law makers for limited liability companies to be in compliance with the prevailing laws and regulations. The understanding of corporate social responsibility as understood in other country is to do good for the society relating to the environment, economic and social aspects beyond compliance to prevailing regulations. The writer discusses "Creating Shared Value" a concept which is different from the "Corporate Social Responsibility" and its implementation by PT Nestlé Indonesia."

"Direksi sebagai pengurus perseroan terbatas perlu memperhatikan doktrin-doktrin yang berlaku umum berkaitan dengan tanggung jawabnya mengurus perseroan terbatas, diantaranya doktrin fiduciary duty. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kepustakaan dengan penelitian hukum normatif dan studi kasus PT Sarinah (Persero). Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah bahwa Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas tidak secara tegas mencantumkan bahwa Direksi mengemban tugas-tugas sesuai doktrin fiduciary duty walaupun tercermin menerima doktrin fiduciary duty dalam pasal-pasalnya. Penerapan prinsip fiduciary duty oleh Direksi dalam mengelola PT berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas sangat bergantung pada Direksi dan pihak-pihak yang terkait dengan PT (stakeholders). Prinsip fiduciary duty menuntut adanya tanggung jawab atas tugas Direksi tersebut. Pada dasarnya, setiap perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh Direksi yang melampaui hak dan kewenangan yang diberikan PT berdasarkan prinsip fiduciary duty tidak mengikat PT. Oleh karena itu, terhadap anggota Direksi tersebur dapat dimintakan pertanggungjawaban hukum, baik secara pidana maupun perdata (criminal and civil liability) dan ia bertanggung jawab untuk membayar kerugian tersebut dari kekayaan pribadinya. Penerapan prinsip fiduciary duty oleh Direksi dalam mengurus PT dalam kasus PT Sarinah (Persero) telah melibatkan lembaga peradilan. Dalam perkara kasus PT Sarinah (Persero), penegakan hukum atas pelanggaran tugas yang dilakukan Direksi adalah melalui dakwaan melakukan tindak pidana korupsi walaupun sebenarnya dalam perkara tersebut terdapat semua unsur fiduciary duty.

---

The Board of Directors, as the board that manages the company, must have regard to general applicable doctrines in carrying out its responsibilities, among other things the doctrine of fiduciary duty. This research uses literature methodology, with normative legal research, and a case study of PT Sarinah (Persero). The conclusion of this research is that Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company does not expressly stipulate that the Board of Directors must meet its duties in accordance with the doctrine of fiduciary duty, even though, this doctrine seems to be embodied in its articles. The implementation of fiduciary duty principle by the Board of Directors in managing a company based on Law No. 40 of 2007 very much depends on the actions of the Board of Directors and relevant stakeholders. The fiduciary duty principle demands that the Board of Directors be responsible for its actions. In essence, every action of the Board of Directors that exceeds rights and authorities given by the company based on the principle of fiduciary duty does not bind the company. Consequently, members of Board of Directors can be liable for both criminal and civil liabilities and to pay this with their personal property. The application of fiduciary duty principle by the Board of Directors in managing the company in the case of PT Sarinah (Persero) has involved the judiciary. In the case of PT Sarinah (Persero), enforcement upon violation of duties by the Board of Directors takes the form of prosecution of a crime of corruption even though, in fact, all elements of fiduciary duty exists in the case."

"ABSTRAKKewajiban mencatatkan saham dalam Daftar Pemegang Saham (DPS) dan Daftar Khusus Pemegang Saham (DKPS) merupakan kewajiban Direksi Perseroan, demikian dinyatakan dalam Pasal 50 Jo. Pasal 101 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Satu hal yang harus diperhatikan dalam pembuatan akta Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) adalah adanya Daftar Pemegang Saham (DPS) Perseroan Terbatas yang bersangkutan. Karena salah satu fungsi dari keberadaan DPS adalah untuk mengetahui jumlah suara yang legal dalam menentukan kuorum rapat dalam pelaksanaan RUPS. Selain itu pentingnya DPS dalam setiap transaksi bisnis suatu perseroan adalah untuk mencegah atau menghindari suatu transaksi yang mencurigakan yang dapat merugikan perseroan, seperti transaski afiliasi, monopoli, insider trading, dll. Namun, selama ini pelaksanaan ketentuan tersebut tidaklah seperti apa yang diharapkan oleh undang-undang. Pada prakteknya terdapat sejumlah kendala yang harus dihadapi terkait pelaksanaan pengadaan DPS dan DKPS, banyak masyarakat yang masih menganggap hal tersebut bukanlah sesuatu yang urgent atau prinsipil dalam menjalankan suatu perusahaan, sehingga banyak pihak yang mengesampingkan pelaksanaannya, meskipun pada dasarnya sebagaian besar telah memahami arti penting pelaksanaan ketentuan tersebut sebagai suatu kewajiban hukum, maupun dalam konteks bagian dari penerapan teori Good Corporate Governance dan teori fiduciary duty, akan tetapi kesadaran hukum tersebut tidak selalu diikuti dengan kepatuhan hukum, dimana masyarakat banyak yang memandang ketentuan tersebut bukanlah sebagai ketentuan hukum yang berdaulat.

---

ABSTRACTThe obligation of listing the company share into registration of Shareholders List and The Special Shareholders List to be the responsibility of the executive director, it is clearly stipulated in Article Number 50 Jo. The Article Number 101 the Government Regulation Number 40 The Year of 2007 in regard with the private company. One thing which is to be considered in writing the minute of General Shareholders Meeting, that is availability of the Shareholders List of the mentioned private limited company. By means to conform to the one of the function of Shareholders List is to know the number of legal votings to decide the acceptable condition in executing of the General Shareholders Meeting. Beside, the important of Shareholders List in any business transaction of the Private Limited Company is to prevent or avoid any suspecting transaction which will make the company suffering lost, among others the transaction of affiliation, monopoly, inside trading, etc. But, in the application of that regulation so far it could not meet as determine by the Government Regulation. In working out the terms and condition of it has always founds some constraints which must be faced accordingly in working out to prepare Shareholders List and The Special Shareholders List. Commonly the society look upon and consider it as not urgent or principly in operating the company, therefore many people does not pay attention so much on its terms application. Although as a matter of fact most of the society are quite aware of its importance as the law obligation, in which also in context with apart of Good Corporate Governance and the theory of fiduciary duty, but this awareness of it, is not always follow by the law enforcement, in which most society look upon that terms and condition considered as unofficial legal law."

"Penelitian ini membahas perbandingan mengenai transformasi konsep Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dan Good Corporate Governance (GCG) pada Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas untuk mengetahui mengapa transformasi GCG berjalan dengan baik, sedangkan transformasi CSR mengundang pengujian konstitutional. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Perkara no 53 Tahun 2008 digunakan sebagai bahan analisis teks untuk memperoleh ragam pemaknaan terhadap istilah Tanggung Jawab Sosial dan Lingkungan (TJSL) serta menganalisis kontroversi pemberlakuan TJSL sebagai kewajiban hukum. Keberhasilan transformasi GCG adalah adanya kebijakan nasional serta dukungan terstruktur dan sistemik. CSR berada pada ranah moral etika dan TJSL pada ranah hukum dan kedua-duanya berlaku di Indonesia.

---

This research compares the transformation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Good Corporate Governance, and explores the factors affecting the transformation of GCG concept to the Indonesian legal system. Questioned was whether the term social and environmental responsibility refers to the internationally known CSR since it has resulted in request for constitutional review. Text analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 53 of 2008 was employed to find the various facets of meanings and provide insight into the issue of CSR as voluntary activities transformed into legally mandatory act. Applying Political Obligation theory reveals that CSR tends to be morally based, hence ‘social and environmental responsibility’ term refers to a set of different criteria based on the Indonesian Constitutional Law, Article 33, paragraph (1),(2),(3)."